








■ r* 






























++ • 




, 






















; aV tp 7. ^pl^i^ .- .$ <^ o fy;^ 




v 























































^ * 















Q^ ^ 









^ -2c 



























8 * % \^ , 



o cf 






'r^ 















W* 















, - 






\° q* 






0> ^ 












A N 



O.V" 



^ ^ 

% 



OCT 



1 J S 



0^ 



^ ^ 

N ^. 


















< ' 






o 
.,-1 -/_, 



N°°x. 






3 '' / 















*S> 






' 













'* .\V 






^ <> 






/ 






£ 



ANTI- POPERY; 



OR POPERY 



UNREASONABLE, UNSCRIPTURAL AND NOVE 

BY JOHN ROGERS, 

MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY OP FRIENDS, 
AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW. 



WITH A PREFACE, NOTES, AND INDEX, 
BY REV. C. SPARRY, OF NEW-YORK. 

A Minister of the Reformed Church. 



" Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins,rT^\ 
and that ye receive not of her plagues." — Rev. 18 : 4. ^0 

Popery is a cunning compound of superficial truth and solid error • 



FIRST AMERICAN FROM THE LONDON SECOND EDITION, 
ENLARGED AND CORRECTED. 



NEW- YORK : 

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY D. FANSHAW, 

No. 150 Nassau-street. 



1841. 






/ 



c 

.» 

If c 

^** Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1841, by 

Daniel Fanshaw, in the Clerk's Office of the District 
^6 Court of the Southern District of New- York. 



J f 



■ . 



v <w> 



r^ 



V* 



THE INDEX. 



jlution; nature of, design of, to rivet chains of priestly tyranny on the people, 
248, 249 ; papal authors' opinions of this, 250 ; refutations of this impious 
tenet and practice, 252, 253. 
:dote of a little girl, and absolution, 250. 
ichrist, who? where? what? 63,84. 

erypha, and the Vulgate declared by the Trent Council to be of Divine authority, 
142; in what sense, 143 ; arguments against this, 148-150; all this a novel fic- 
tion, 160 and 312. 
with five legs, relics of, 305. 

.n.micular Confession, 266 ; it originates five great evils, 268. 

B 

Baptismal regeneration, one of the delusive and mortal errors of popery, 294 ; by 
. what men this is advocated, 295 ; refutation of it, 296. 

Berkely, his absurdities matched by transubstantiation, 188. 

Bible, according to popery, is " not a sufficient rule and guide ;" this deism rebuked, 
159; the Bible a prohibited book by Rome, 161, 162. What the Holy Bible is 
in the pope's kirk, 166; the Bible and popery cannot travel together, — parable 
of the two pots of iron £td clay travelling, 167, 168. 

Bible Societies denounced by the papal doctors, 166. 

Blasphemy, a variety of specimens of papal, 307-311. 

Bossuet and Edgar noticed as champions of their respective churches, 70, 71. "Note. 

Brownlee, Dr. his character of thit volume, 19, 20. 

Burnet, Bishop, his idea of the spirit of discussion, 39. 

C 

Cannibals. By the eating of the body and blood, literal, of Christ, in the mass wafer, 
men are made cannibals, 194. 

Catholic; this title not conceded to the papal sect, — the true name of it, 76. Rea-r ? 
son of ihis, 77, 7tf. Romanite, papite, the true titles, reasons, 79. 

Celibate of priests, two arguments for it, 275; object of it, pecuniary gain to the 
pope, 274 ; five other imaginary arguments for it, 275 ; the pope cherishes celi- 
bacy, and leaves priestly chastity to take care of itself, 279 ; it is the source 
of boundless vileness and polluiion, 279. 

Celibacy and Owenism, 52-55 ; celibacy and misery, 55-57. 

Chastity of priests left by the pope to take Care of itself, 279 ; priestly practice con- 
trasted with that of Luther, 281. 

Chillingworth and Chalmers, matches for Bossuet and Pellarmine, 70. 

Christ's body in the mass wafer, a body not born of woman, hence not his body, 191. 

Christendom, divisions of, 71. 

Collier's faith, the faith of papites, "Believe as the church believes," 172. 

Confession, auricular, 266; it originates five grievous evils, 268; it displays the 
tyranny, hypocrisy, and lewdness of priests, 270. 

Confirmation, a papal sacrament, 282 ; its real object and design, 288. 

Controversy, the spirit of, 39. 

Critiques of foreign reviews in this volume, 21-34. 

Crucifixes and crosses; worship of God by them unscriptural and impious, 230. 

Cup denied to the laity by Roman priests, reasons of this, 218; arguments against 
this atrocious sacrilege, 219; reason, Scripture, primitive practice, against 
it, 219; the true reason and design of the priests in this tyranny, 219; Pope 
Gelasius against their modern practice, 219. Note. 



4 INDEX, 

3D 

Deism, the tendency of papism to it; it destroys the logical foundation of the Holy 

Scriptures, 198-201. 
Devil's master-piece, popery so called by Cecil, 64, 
Drelincourt, quotes the dying words of Cardinal Perron, 185. 
Duration of popery, 84, 85. 

Eucharist, see transubstantiation and mass. 

Excommunication by priests ; what, exposition, refutation of this tremendous wea- 
pon of ghostly despotism, 259, 260 •, it is presumption, pride, and blasphemy, 262. 

Extreme unction, facetiously made a pope's sacrament, 286 ; base design of, 292, 

F 

Fictions, popery a collection of modern, in eighteen specimens, 312-315. 

Fletcher's lectures on the Catholic religion, great value of, 214. Note. 

Frauds, an engine of papal support, 67. 

O 

Grace, conferred through the sacraments, an essential and fatal error of popery, 29£ 

Government civil, union of the church, or papal kirk with, produces persecution, 175. 

Greek tongue ; six reasons why rational men should have preferred the Greek 
to the Latin, in case of selecting an "unknown tongue" for the laity, 180- 
182. Reasons which induced the papites to select the Latin, 183, 184. 
H 

Host, worship of the, what, 216 ; the grossest of modern idolatry, proof of this, 
217. No papite can have the faith in the Host, — doctrine of intention, 217, 
Note. Saying of pope Adrian VI. on this, — " If thou be Christ, 1 worship thee !" 
217. The same argument by which the priests sanction this Host worship, will 
sanction the worship of any conspicuous object of nature, 220. Note. 

Hume; the dark and dire spirit of Hume's philosophisms matched by the vagaries 
of transubstantiation, 188, and Note. 
I 

Idolatry of the papal church, twofold, 220 ; it is unscriptural, 221 ; it is irrational, 
222«- Invoking a saint as mediator, unscriptural and irrational, 223. By idolatry 
papites dishonor Almighty God — by their " merit " they glorify man, 235. 

Indulgences, what, exposure of them, 255, &c. 

Images, worship of God by them most solemnly condemned by the Scriptures, 230. 
The papites leave out the second commandment, this condemns themselves, 230, 
Effect of this image worship on the human mind, 231. Objection, answer, 23L 

Implicit faith in priests, hence the power of priestcraft, 170. 

Index prohibitory, 173. 

Infallibility, what? not in the pope, not in councils, 130. Eight arguments against 
it, 123-130, a demonstration of its utter absurdity, 123-133 ; found no where, 
135; how far does it extend, — absurdity of this, 135, 136 ; the Bible decidedly 
against it, 137, 138 ; it is an impudent imposture in every sense, 139 ; pretend- 
ers to infallibility of three kinds, 140 ; one definition of infallibility will make 
it extend to all who agree in one, all the Reformed churches, 140, 141 ; differ- 
ences of papites on this article go against their infallibility, 141; true infalli 
bility found only in God and the Holy Bible, 142. 

Infidelity, is popery run to seed, 62. 

Inquisition, Dr. Pye Smith's remark on the, 65-, this and persecution the two sup- 
porters of popery, 66. 

Intention, chances of failure of, in transubstantiation, 206, 217. Note. Refutation 
of this terrible power of ghostly ambition, 297-300; the difficulties attending 
it, 301. 



INDEX. 5 

Irish bishop's response to pope Leo XIPs Bull against Bible Societies, 170. 

J 
Jesuits, zeal and labors of, 12. 

John the apostle had abetter right to the primaty, if auy had, 92 ; farther proof, 101. 
Justification and sanctification, exhibited in the two sacraments, and hence but 

two, 287. 

K 
Kirk, used in preference to church, why, 37 ; different kirks, 71. 
Knowledge and philosophy, feared and proscribed by papist priests, 162, 165, 166. 

L, 
Latin tongue of papism, 175 ; absurdity of the unknown tongue system, 176-179. 

Design of this by Rome, 180, 
Leo XII. the pope denounced Bible Societies, 169: the response of the Irish bishops 

to this impious attack on the Bible, 170. 
Liberty, course of, against papism, 51. 

Lyrin, Vineentius, his views of infallibility, and what? 140. 
Luther and the Pope in contrast on marriage and celibacy, 281. 

M 
Magna Charta of English liberty obtained by papal barons, but declared null and 

void by pope Innocent, 261. 
Mass, full review of, 210, its monstrous absurdity, 210, 211 ; is unreasonable, 211, 

212 ; is unscriptural, 213 ; it gives the lie to St. Paul in Hebrews, 215. The real 

use and design of the mass, to glorify and give power to the pope and priests, 

215, 216. 
Matrimony ludicrously made a sacrament, 286 ; priests' aim in this, 291. 
Merit, papal doctrine, what, — of three uses, monstrous impiety of this, 234 ; by this 

they glorify man, as by idolatry they dishonor God, 235 ; its fatal tendency, 

235; it is impracticable and impossible to do more merit than what God re- 
quires, 236-238 ; an appeal to papites on this, 239. 
Milton's ode on the Piedmontese massacre, 67. 

Ministers have their wives in holy wedlock, priests have their concubines, 281. 
Miracles, the dogma of the mass tends to take away the evidence of our Lord's 

miracles, 201, 202. 
Miracle-mongers, each Roman priest is a,— he creates bodies, souls, and even his 

Creator, 193. 
Modernity of the system of papism, in eighteen specimens, 312-315. 
Monstrous doctrines of the mass, — body of Christ in it, not born— every where, 

human flesh eaten by the priests' dogmas, 193, 194. Monstrous ideas of the soul 

in the mass wafer, 195, 196. Christ eaten alive, yet the wafer is dead, 196. 

Priests swallow his soul, 196,197; they swallow his divinity, — they actually 

avow this, 197, 198, 204. 

N 
Nephews and nieces, the unusual number of, in papal countries, in consequence of 

the priests' celibacy, 280. 
Nepotism, whence its origin, 281. 
Novelty of popery, — retaliation of the charge of papites on us, 311 ; " Where was 

your religion before the council of Trent?" 312. Eighteen specimens of its 

novelty, 312-315. 

O 
Orders, holy, a papal sacrament; refutation of, 284; the proud design of, 290. 
Owenism, atheism of, 52 ; and priestly celibacy, 53, 54, 55. 
Oxford and Jesuits, 13. 
Oxford Tracts,—" Oxford Trash," 69 ; popery the same in Rome and in Oxford, GO. 



6 INDEX. 

Popes, character of, 106; how they arrived at papal power, by armies, frauds,— and 
some of them by their mistresses, 107, 108 , the popes primaty, 87. 

Papism, apathy of many on this subject. 12; excitement increasing on it, 14. Pa- 
pism as it is, 40; tendency of it, 41; its influence on Pagans, Jews, and Mo- 
hammedans, 42, 43 ; papism and Owenism, 53; peculiar character of papism, 
63,64; it has been sustained by persecution and the inquisition, 66, 174; by 
frauds, 67; it is the fond invention of men, 67; papism is still papism, 69; 
works against popery, 69 ; papal unity and plurality, 72; some worthy papites, 
79; Note, on tins, 79; popery at war with reason, the Bible, and antiquity, 80- 
82; papism placed in contrast with the Holy Bible, 107; it is at war with our 
senses, deprives us of the necessary use of them, and in the place of all these 
gives us the pope's infallibility, 189 ; papism is ** a cunning compound of super- 
ficial truth and solid error/' 293 ; it is a system of novel fictions,— eighteen 
proofs and specimens of its novelty, 312-315. 

Penance a papal sacrament, refutation of it. 283; true despotic design of it, 289. 

Perron, cardinal, the dying words of; called transubstantiation "a monster," 185. 

Persecution, one main pillar of papism, 65 ; number of its victims of persecution, f)6. 

Peter never had any supreruaty, 88-91 ; even if he had, it did not descend, 97-99 ; in- 
quiry if he ever was at Rome, 101, 102. 

Phocas, the tyrant, made Boniface, the bishop of Rome, the first pope, 85. 

Poisoned bread and wine, a grand and infallible means proposed to the priests to 
test transubstantiation, 205. 

Politikirkalily in papism, this originates persecution for religion, 175. 

Priest, true id.-a of a, 37 ; a filthy and unchaste creature, 281. 

Prie-tcraft, most strikingly displayed in auricular confession, 267, &c. A striking 
picture of it in the mass-houses, and papal worship, 303. The marvellous trump- 
ery employed by it to delude the senses of men, 304. 

Purgatory, what it is, 239,— iis real use to support priestal power over man, 239, 
240; it is unscnptural in the basis it assumes, 240; hostile to Christ's atone- 
ment, 241 ; it opposes the work of the Holy Ghost, 241, 242 ; it nurses impiety 
and immorality, 241 ; it tends to make the sinner neither to fear nor regard 
hell, 244, it is a tremendous weapon of priestly tyranny, 245, 246 ; it insults 
the Almighty, and sets up a new way of cleansing sinners, apart from the Lord's 
atone nent. 246, 247; it reverses the quack saying, and says, no pay, no cure, 
257. Purgatory represents priests as cruel and savage, 257. 

Puseyism and popery, 69. 

R. 

Reformed church ; in her the ministry have their wives and children ; in the papal 
church the priests have their concubines, and bastards called nephews and nei- 
ces, 279-282. 

Regeneration, baptismal, Rome's fatal error, 234 ; by whom advocated, 295; refuta- 
tion of, 296. 

Relics, iheir folly and impiety, 305. 

Rock, the famous text of the, examined, 93-96. 

Rogers, Jo in our author. The object of this book, 9, 10, 45. He coins new words, 
45.51. Note, 86. 

S 

Sacraments, the papal seven, 282 ; there are only two in number, one reason, 287. 

Saints, invocation of as intercessors, unscriptural and irrational, 223, &c. Objec- 
tions of the papites answered, 225. Invocation of them as intercessors with 
Christ, unscriptural and irrational, 226. Papite objection answered, 228. 



INDEX. 1 

Scriptures ; the priests palm the absurdities and impiety of the mass on them, hence 
deism, 200. 

Sectaries abroad in the world, 49, 50. 

Senses of man testify against the impiety and absurdity of transubstantiation, 187 •, 
our Lord appeals to them for his identity, 189, 201. 

Smith, Dr. J. Pye ; remark on the inquisition, 65. 

Soul of Christ, where to be found in the mass wafer, 195. 

Superstition essentially an element of popery, 301. 

Suprematy or primaty of the pope, ten proofs against it, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92. Pa- 
pal arguments examined, 93,97; not only the abuses of it condemned, but the 
primaty itself, 100, 101; the papal suprematy comes not from Christ, or by St. 
Peter, but from the pagan emperor who had the title of " Pontifez Maximus^ 
103. Suprematy lost if it ever did exist, in the popes, 105. 
T 

Talmud, traditions of the, 150. 

Traditions; what, nature of, Hebrew traditions, 151; Romish traditions, 151, 152. 
Nine arguments against oral traditions, 153-158. 

Transubstantiation, definition— a monster, 185 ; Cardinal Perron called it so, 185. 
Our Lord's soul, according to the papites, is in the wafer, 186 ; it is not the old 
body of, but a new body that is made, 186 ; many bodies, absurdity, 187, 190, 194 ; 
Eighteen arguments against this irrational and impious fiction, 187, &c ; it makes 
Christ's body omnipresent, 189, &c. ; this body in the mass wafer not born of 
woman, hence not Christ's body, 191 ; this impious dogma represents Christ's 
living body breaking to pieces, the self-same body in the wafer, 191 ; it makes 
a whole Christ in each wafer and in each particle — an infinity of bodies, 192 ; it 
makes men cannibals, 194 ; this dogma makes infidels, 198, 199, 200 ; this is a 
suicidal doctrine, 201 ; even if true, it could not be proved, 203 ; a grand test 
of its truth formally proposed, by poisoned bread and wine, 205 ; the chances 
against a genuine change of the wafer into Christ, 205-207; the only argument 
for this novel doctrine, 207 ; reply to, and refutation of this, 207, 208 •, it involves 
error, falsehood and the mortal sin of idolatry, 216. Note. 

Triple crown of the pope figures forth the great earthly three, — Moloch, Mammon, 
and Belial, 66. 

U 

Unction, extreme, facetiously styled a saerament in the papal kirk, 286 ; the true 
design of this by despotic priests, 292. 

Unity and plurality of papism, 72-75. Unity in papism, and in Protestantism fairly 
compared, 73. % 

Unknown tongues, 170. 

V 

Victims, number of, slain by papal persecution, 66. 

Vulgate and apocrypha declared to be of Divine authority by the Council of Trent, 
142; in what sense Divine 142. Reasons against the Divine authority of the 
Vulgate, 143-148. 

TV 

Wives ; Luther and the reformed ministers have their wives, but priests have their 
concubines, 281. 

Worship of papists in their mass-houses, a true picture of, 303. 

Writers on papism, 17 ; kind of, required in this cause, 69, 70. 



PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR. 



1 have here to inform the reader that what was 
formerly called Jlntipopopriestian r is now called Jlnti- 
Popery, the name of the work being changed in 
order more clearly to indicate its nature. The for- 
mer edition contained some remarks not relating to 
Popery, that are omitted here ; and the present edi- 
tion is confined to Popery. In the work as now 
altered or amended, the reader will not find the ex- 
traneous matter, the particulars foreign to the great 
subject of the book, that were in the former edition ; 
he will not find any remark (so far as I remember) 
really painful to the mind, or very opposite to the 
view of any real Protestant. The w r ork now relates 
to Popery, the whole of Popery, and nothing but 
Popery ; and therefore will, I hope, be acceptable or 
unobjectionable to the whole Protestant world, and 
even to the whole christian world that oppose the 
plan of papal Rome. 



10 PREFACE. 

Having exerted myself in defending Protestantism 
against Popery, I am advised, by both churchmen 
and dissenters, to let my next literary effort be in 
defence of Religion at large against Infidelity, by 
bringing out a work (that has cost much time and 
thought) on Moral Freedom and Responsibility, in op- 
position to the Fatalist Infidel, and Sceptic. I incline 
to follow the advice; for Popery and Infidelity, or 
rather Infidelity and Popery, are the two leading ene- 
mies we have to oppose. 



THE PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 



One of the striking characteristics of this literary age, 
is the deep and earnest attention bestowed on the sub- 
ject of Romanism by the best writers and reviewers of 
America and Britain. Some eighty or a hundred years 
ago, the subject was deemed to be exhausted; no one 
could say any more on the subject. There had been 
giants before our day, who had left nothing to be done 
by those who came after. It was, therefore, useless for 
any writer to enter the field of discussion strewed with 
the trophies of Protestant victory. The last word had 
been said: the last argument exhausted. " The Beast" 
was dying : it was convulsed in the head and mem- 
bers. It was a waste of strength and ammunition to con- 
tinue the attack on the dying " Dragon." The result 
was what might have been anticipated by an " earnest 
contender for the faith once delivered to the saints." The 
Protestant watchmen and warriors, with the exception 
of a gallant and faithful few, turned away their eyes ex- 
clusively to other objects ; and did no more deem the 
expiring "Man of Sin" worthy of any further watching, 
or even a serious consideration. And even to this day, 
even in the eulogized light of the nineteenth century, 
how many do yet actually profess to assure themselves 
that there can be no possible danger from Popery and Je- 
suitism, either to our holy religion or our civil liber- 
ties. They can see no need of watching; no need of 
defence against the inroads of papism ; although even un- 
der their own eyes, and in our own life-time, the humble 
and obscure bishop or two have been increased to up- 
wards of twenty bishops ; and the narrow diocess has 
extended to upwards of twenty extensive diocessesj 



12 PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 

while Jesuit seminaries are reared on every hand : and 
the land swarms with priests and nuns, sisters of cha- 
rity and sisters of mercy of every gradation, and friars 
white, black and grey. They aim at converting our 
land into a Spain or an Austria, in a short time. 

Meantime another species of multiform popery, under 
the name of deism, and atheism, arrested the attention, 
and summoned forth the watchful energies of the chris- 
tian warriors. Even so late as thirty or forty years ago, 
our pulpits resounded universally with all the eloquence 
of argument and declamation against deism. Hume, 
and Voltaire, and Paine were in every lip. Every minis- 
ter wrote, and spoke, and entered the arena of public 
discussion against deism, and atheism. And our fathers 
in the ministry and many religious laymen having pum- 
meled these two emissaries of Rome, and driven them 
into a shameful and hopeless obscurity, they have been 
lying on their oars, and doffing their arms; for ha- 
ving annihilated these rampant foes, they can see no 
danger of papal Rome invading the church and our free 
republic in its old and wonted form. They have so 
long dreamed over their deistic victories, that they seem 
actually not yet awake to the appalling fact that Jesuit- 
ism is resuscitated, and in the fullest and most vigilant 
and wonted vigorous activity ! And what were Hume,Vol- 
taire, Gibbon, Paine, and all the higher and minor cham- 
pions, compared to the phalanx of desperate Jesuits mov- 
ing in over Britain and our republic, with a moral force 
propelled by all the combined hatred and force of deism 
and atheism, and Rome and the Holy Alliance ; and ne- 
ver to be stayed or subdued, but by God and the ener- 
gies of a christian and republican people ! 

For, while these infidels, — the enemies of God and man, 
who were let loose, at the French Revolution, upon Bri- 
tain and our republic, — were thus falling and fleeing be- 
fore the Lord's host, as the hosts of Midian before the 



PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 13 

sword of the Lord and Gideon ; the watchful and re- 
cruited powers of Rome began to raise their heads 5 
and have been putting forth their last desperate strug- 
gle to regain all that they had lost by the Reformation. 
These struggles of Rome and the De Propaganda, now 
animated by the demon power of Jesuitism, and direct- 
ed against Protestant truth and liberty, have been long 
carefully concealed. And every advancing step of the 
foes was soft and sly 5 and no overt cause of alarm given 
to Protestants. " Strike ! but let it not be seen whence 
the blow comes !" this has been the watchword, utter- 
ed by the dark and designing provincial 5 and whispered 
along the gloomy and lowering ranks of the reckless 
sons of Loyola ! 

But, at the close of the late wars of Europe, Pius VII. 
having regained his tiara and throne, girded up his loins, 
and began his last desperate effort to regain no less 
than all the former papal power and ascendency in the 
-world. Adopting pope Paul III. as his model, he revived 
the sect of Jesuits, the bitterest and most successful 
and sanguinary of all the enemies of the reformation. 
This outrage upon the honor and liberties of the Euro- 
pean powers, and upon us in this republic, was done in 
1814, without even a remonstrance from the slumbering 
Protestant powers. And these Jesuits have been, since 
that era, busily at their dark work, w 7 ith all their former 
powers, learning, cunning, duplicity, and immeasurable 
atheism and licentiousness! They spare no pains nor 
expense. They hesitate at no sacrifice of truth, honor, 
morals, men's lives. They peril their own personal safe- 
ty, and even their souls' salvation, to obey the pope! 
They form one solid column of the Babylonian host, mo- 
ving on, with the most abject submission to their des- 
potic and cold-blooded provincial, to any work assigned 
them, to any warfare, to any service, moral or immoral, 
loyal or treasonable, christian, or literary, or profane, 



34- PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 

or atheistic ! Bound to the car of their idol, the Roman 
Juggernaut,they are prepared to sacrifice for its interests 
their health, their conscience, their life ; and I repeat it, 
even their souls' eternal salvation ! Milton represents 
his demon as one who would " rather reign in hell, 
than serve in heaven." But the Jesuits outstrip that 
proud Lucifer. They would rather serve as slaves their 
haughty lord, than "serve in heaven or rule in hell! 1 ' 
They are imperialists with the emperor ; royalists with 
the king ; republicans with the republicans ; Jews with 
the Jew ; infidels with the deist ; atheist with the atheist ! 
They are puritans with the dissenter ; high churchmen 
with the Oxfordites ! They are presbyterians among the 
presbyterians ; they are pushing themselves forward 
among all classes, and all sects, in morals, literature, 
religion, politics! If they hear of a protestant mission- 
ary eminently successful at his station, be it in the old 
world or new world, they hasten through all perils by 
sea and land, through fire and water, to prevent the con-, 
version of heathens! If they find a people abandoning 
their gods, they bring them a new set of glittering idols ! 
If they find the chiefs and people at peace, they kindle the 
flames of discord and war. If they find difficulty in cor- 
rupting the public morals, they introduce intoxicating 
liquors, and boundless licentiousness, by their confes- 
sional and their nunneries! 

In a word, they are playing the same deep game, to 
the fullest extent of their vast means, which their prede- 
cessors played of old in the wide field of Europe and 
America. And now, without concealment or blush, they 
are boasting that they will soon be what their forefathers 
were, in their unparalleled ascendency in every court, in 
every government, whither they can force or worm 
their way. And their object, for ever kept in their eye, 
is the extinction of the light, the purity, the liberties, 
and glory of our blessed reformation ! Their war of exter- 



PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 15 

ruination is waged against pure Christianity and liberty! 

There are two reasons, not usually noticed by writers, 
which paved the way secretly, but too effectually, for 
the papal success in Protestant Britain. First, Eome was 
on the British side, and in her interests in her struggles 
in the late wars of Britain with France ; and Rome 
even caused a medal to be struck in honor of her mighty 
Protestant ally, with the motto, " Rome protected by the 
British cannon /" Second : At the beginning of the French 
revolution great multitudes of emigrants, popish priests, 
friars, and seculars, and nuns, and literary men, flocked 
into Britain, especially England. These found their way 
into innumerable families of the higher and middle 
classes, as tutors, governesses, and school-masters ; and 
these repaid their benefactors by sowing copiously the 
seeds of popery. And the present generation are reaping 
the bitter and fatal fruits ! 

But a crisis has been induced, and is steadily ap- 
proaching. The Jesuits from the De Propaganda, and the 
Oxford doctors, their overt auxiliaries, have been push- 
ing matters rather too fast, and too far, for their own 
security. These combined emissaries of Rome had 
probably calculated in doing their work of proselytism 
thoroughly, while the dissenters and voluntaries were 
engaged in the present pitched battle with the doctors 
of the established churches of England and Scotland. 
The former seem even to court the papists as their aux- 
iliaries in overthrowing the establishments ; and the 
papists are nothing loth to smile on their labors and 
lend them a helping hand. But this is done and managed 
by them, just as the fox in the fable managed to keep 
up the keen combat of the lion and the tiger, in order 
that he might seize the carcase. They urge on the con- 
flict; they wish both parties to be devoured and eaten 
up, in order that they may come quietly in and seize the 
entire prey ! 



16 PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 

But we rejoice to see that the men of God in Britain, 
who ought long ago to have hastened into the field for 
the help of the Lord's bleeding cause, are now roused 
from their long and heavy sleep. The most accom- 
plished preachers are now sounding the alarm. Elo- 
quence and literature are putting forth their choice and 
most admired sons into the thickening and tumultuous 
battle with Rome. The most prominent and influential 
ministers are uniting in regular courses of lectures 
against the popery of Rome and the popery of Oxford. 
The General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland has 
enacted that each of her ministers, in each parish in 
the kingdom, shall preach once each month on the 
ruinous heresies and innumerable evils and dangers of 
Romanism. And the number of able writers, and the 
number of thoroughly equipped disputants descending 
into the arena of public discussions with priests 5 and 
the number and variety of books teeming from the 
press against the " man of sin," " the beast,"" and " false 
prophet," are almost incredible ! The beginning of the 
end of Romanism has taken place ! 

Among these, w r e hail John Rogers, Esq. the author 
of the following work, entitled, xx Anti-Popery $ or Po- 
pery unreasonable, unscriptural, and novel" And we 
cordially bid him welcome into the field as a spiritual 
warrior against Antichrist, of no ordinary zeal, activity, 
and prowess. 

The reader will find this volume of Mr. Rogers an 
original and extraordinary work. The author displays 
talents of the very highest order; a mind accomplished, 
and thoroughly disciplined by divine truth. He takes a 
clear and comprehensive view of each portion in the 
detail, of the Roman Catholic controversy, now occupy- 
ing so extensively the deepest and most intense interest 
at home and abroad. He selects with great sagacity 
and judgment the most prominent topics. His argu- 



PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 17 

ments are choice, logical, and precise. He does not 
stop to throw any unnecessary ornament around them. 
He disdains to pause in his urgent career, to dispute on 
small matters. He does not suffer himself to be turned 
aside from his main object. He marches directly up in- 
to the breach made by the well-directed force of Divine 
truth, and seizes upon the very citadel itself. He is 
brief on every point 5 some will think him too brief. It 
is true he enters into no long and profound investiga- 
tion ; he leaves that to the learned theologians and 
Biblical scholars. He does not, like the unmatched 
Samuel Edgar, in his " Variations of Popery," battle 
the foemen with their own weapons, gathered so suc- 
cessfully from their own armory and that of their fa- 
thers. He does not stop to clinch each statement by an 
unquestionable quotation from Roman bulls and canons. 
He leaves that to be done by Cramp, in his " Text-Book 
of Popery." He does not go slowly over the field, and 
touch upon and exhaust each topic. He leaves that to 
the fascinating and successful anti-popery man, M'Ga- 
ven, of " The Glasgow Protestant." He writes studied- 
ly, in a popular manner, for the people. Dr. Usher, Dr. 
James, in his " Bellum Papale," and his " Treatise on 
the Roman Corruptions of the Scriptures, the Councils, 
and the Fathers $" and Wijlet, in his " Synopsis Papis- 
mi ;" Edgar, Finch, Mendham, Chillingworth, unmatch- 
ed by any disputant in clearness, force, and logical 
accuracy, and a host of giants of this class, wrote for 
scholars and divines. But John Rogers, Esq. writes 
this book for studious youth, and the Protestant people, 
and also for Roman Catholic people; and he has dis- 
played that remarkable tact which men of talents only 
do possess, namely, that of adapting his statements, 
illustrations, and appeals, to every one ; and to captivate 
every class of even the most careless students. The 
theologian who has deeply studied the history and dog- 



18 PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 

mas of papism, will not, indeed, find much that is new 
here. But, the manner of treating the whole subject 
possesses novelty ; and to the great mass of the people 
of our republic, both the matter and his manner will be 
found new and fascinating. He is at antipodes with the 
bulky folio-writers of the past centuries, and especially 
of those who lived near the Reformation. He sifts out 
the grains of wheat from the chaff and inferior grain, — 
the verbiage and repetitions of those great men, — and 
he sets it before us well winnowed, and in a state to be 
converted into genuine and nutritious food for our souls. 
The numerous eulogies bestowed on the first edition 
of this work by the British and Irish Reviewers, which 
we have herewith republished, and the praises of our 
own best critics, will abundantly sustain me in all parts 
of this my hearty commendations of this work, which 
we now present to the American public. At the same 
time, I must not forget to add, that as the second Eng- 
lish edition — from which we print and stereotype this 
first American edition — is far superior to the first, the 
author having greatly improved and thoroughly cor- 
rected it : so, as I have had the benefit of the volun- 
teered assistance of my estimable and reverend friend, 
J)r. Brownlee, in making corrections, valuable addi- 
tions, with notes, and an index, I may venture to say 
that this will be found to be superior to the second 
English edition. I trust, therefore, that this attempt to 
satisfy and please the American public with a new and 
greatly improved edition of J. Rogers' rr Anti-Popery," 
will be duly appreciated at the hands of their obedient 
and devoted servant, for Jesus Christ's sake, 

Charles Sparry. 

New- York, April, 1841. 



RECOMMENDATIONS. 



This work of John Rogers I have examined with consider- 
able care, and very great interest. The British and Irish reviews 
of the first edition, as appears from the following numerous 
quotations from them, exhibit one continuous eulogium upon 
it. And after examination, I am satisfied that there is no ex- 
aggeration in their praises. This new champion — whom we 
welcome into the field — richly merits their applause and ours. 
The author, it is said, is an eminent counsellor at law, in Lon- 
don. He displays a mind at once vigorous, thoroughly disci- 
plined, and possessed of great critical acumen. He is tolerably 
well acquainted with the best books on the Roman Catholic 
controversy. Guided by these, he fixes upon the more promi- 
nent points of Papism; states them with accuracy and candor, 
and selects his arguments with admirable discrimination. And 
while his language is most obliging, and his whole manner, as 1 
it ought to be, perfectly courteous, he lays hold of his oppo- 
nent's entire creed, rites, and ceremonies, with a giant's grasp, 
from which there is no escape. And the reader rises from the 
perusal of the book, fully satisfied with the manner in which 
Mr. Rogers has utterly annihilated the defence of a system 
which all good men have pronounced to be as detestable as it 
is dangerous to the souls of men ; which is at irreconcilable 
war with reason and the Holy Scriptures; and which history 
has pronounced to be a combination of all errors and heresies, 
mixed up with modern fictions, ludicrous fables, and puerile 
ceremonies borrowed from heathenism by The Man of Sin. 

If Mr. Rogers has a weak part in his argument, — it is this : — 
he does not stop to give his readers the copious authorities, 
which he might easily have given from the Doctors, the Canons, 
and Bulls of the papal " Kirk," to sustain his charges and 
strengthen his arguments. His opponents in Britain may, per- 
haps, not pursue the disreputable course pursued by our Jesuit 
disputants in the United States. If they do, Mr. Rogers will find 



20 RECOMMENDATIONS. 

them actually denying the most accurate quotations — and even 
their own books — and even the notes of the Rhemish New Tes- 
tament — although these are composed either of quotations from 
" the Fathers," or of doctrines taught by the canons and bulls 
of Rome! Hence, if Mr. Rogers continues his argument — as 
he must do in his own defence — he will soon discover the ne- 
cessity of not only indicating the volume, the chapter, the page, 
and the edition whence he quotes his materials, but of estab- 
lishing the authenticity and authority of even the papal standard 
works ! For the Jesuit priests and bishops, with face of bronze, 
avowedly act on the old resuscitated maxims of the sons of 
Loyola — "Admit nothing; deny every thing, when reasoning 
with heretics /" 

The style of Rogers is sententious, clear, and forcible; and 
possesses great logical precision. With its richness, however, 
there is a singular quaintness. And to some, his new nomen- 
clature will seem, at first, rather singular. For " church," he 
invariably uses "kirk;" for "primacy," "primaty;" "papite 
and Romanite," for " papist and Romanist ;" " perhap," for 
" perhaps ;" also, " nowafter," for " hereafter ;" and " priestal," 
and "priest ruled," and " priestrulive," " politikirkal," and 
" politikirkalian." 

And we are not unwilling to admit that he is sustained in all 
this, by the reasons and authorities which he advances. He 
has put us in mind, more than once, of the fine, old, manly, 
vigorous, and majestic style of Milton's prose. And we like it 
the more for this very reason. 

W. C. Brownlee, 

One of the Collegiate Pastors of the Prot. Ref. 
Dutch Church in New- York. 
New- York, April, 1841. 



CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 



ff In this work, the Pope and his adherents are pummelled 
by a most vigorous antagonist in a way that will make their 
bones ache for many a day. Mr. Rogers has not only assailed 
the leading errors, and absurdities, and blasphemies of the Ba- 
bylonish religion, but has attacked, unripped, and exposed, seri- 
atim, the details of the idolatry of the Romish Anti-Christ. He 
fastens on the hoary delinquent with the pertinacity of a mas- 
tiff, and never relinquishes his hold till he has shaken him and 
his trappings to tatters. He exposes the naked deformity of the 
whole heap of cardinals, monks, nuns, and friars, 

1 Black, white, and grey ; with all their trumpery/ 

and fairly kicks them out of the pale of the religion of the Bible, 
which they have so long disgraced with their absurdities, ob- 
scenities, and delusions. Mr. Rogers is no common combat- 
ant. He is armed at all points, and dexterous in the manage- 
ment of all weapons of attack and defence. This work should 
be read, and will be read by all Protestants. It has conferred a 
service on Protestantism, and placed in the possession of every 
Protestant, a manual for his protection from error and deceit, 
The whole subject of Popery is examined with judgment and 
learning by a man of strong mind, considerable erudition, and 
indefatigable industry. The result is, as maybe supposed, an 

excellent work essentially excellent in its object, 

and decisive in its reasoning. An extract from the chapter 'An 
Account of Popery,' will induce the reader to go through the 
whole work." — Times. 



n It is the production of an original mind, and a sound think- 
er, and one truly earnest in the Protestant cause. 

"We should regard it as little short of a calamity to the in- 
terest of truth, were the title of this volume to operate as a 



22 CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 

hinderance to its extensive circulation. Strange as it may at 
first sight appear to be, we are disposed to think that, upon ex- 
amination, it will be found to be etymologically correct and ap- 
propriate. But whatever judgment may be formed of a name 
consisting of seventeen letters, and forming an entirely new 
coinage of the author's own, we beg to assure our readers that 
the work itself is one of the most original, elaborate, searching, 
and conclusive exposures of Ptomanism that has seen the light 
in modern times. It is hopeless, perhaps, to suppose that Ca- 
tholics will read it ; but this we will say, that an unprejudiced 
Catholic could scarcely rise from its perusal the dupe of Romish 
superstition. But the value of the work, at the present junc- 
ture, as a weapon in the hands of Protestants, is great beyond 
what we can well express. Those who will determine to sur- 
mount the prejudice which certain features pertaining to Mr. 
Rogers' style may possibly create, will soon find that they are 
holding converse with a mind of \he first order, and that Rome 
in his hands is tossed about upon the horns of a thousand di- 
lemmas. The author possesses great powers of logical discri- 
mination, and knows how to select the weak point in his an- 
tagonist's argument, and to bear down upon him with almost 
annihilating force. 

" There is moreover nothing prolix, nothing verbose, nothing 
weak or trifling in Mr. Rogers' mode of attack. He opens a 
broadside in every instance, at once, upon the enemy ; and trusts 
the victory to great principles rather that to minute and feeble 
details. He uses very strong language indeed in portraying 
the horrible abominations of Popery ; but as he speaks not poli- 
tically, we like his honest and uncompromising denunciations of 
"the man of sin," who is " the son of perdition." Those who 
wish to see a thorough dissection of Popery, in all its hideous 
deformity, as the direct antagonist of the Gospel, and the inve- 
terate enemy of human kind, will find in Mr. Rogers' work a 
mental feast equally refreshing and invigorating. What will 
Papists do with this book ? We predict that they will either 
pass it by in dignified silence, or misrepresent all its arguments 
and details by that Jesuitical sophistry for which their best wri- 
ters are shamefully notorious. If Mr. Rogers is spared, we can- 
not help thinking, from this specimen of his pen, that he is des- 
tined to be the troubler of Rome. We trust he will watch Dr. 



CRITIQUES ON THE FORBIER EDITION. 23 

Wiseman and the Dublin Review, and make them feel his 
withering touch. He is fit to grapple with them, and he should 
know it, and not shrink from the task at a time when Popery 
is stalking abroad in the land with a boldness and an effrontery 
unknown of late years in Great Britain." — Evangelical Magazine. 



" Here are manifest and numerous proofs of integrity of pur- 
pose, ardency of spirit, and a love for the truth, with great ori- 
ginality and strength of thought. . . We doubt not that in con- 
sequence of his efforts, discussions will be elicited that may 
tend to bring back many sections of the church to a nearer ap- 
proximation with the faith once delivered to the saints. In this 
work he assails the errors of Popery, and with a giant arm. . . . 
He grasps a ponderous club r like a weaver's beam,' and march- 
ing with firm and fearful step into the very camp of papal er- 
ror, deals out, r right and left,' tremendous blows which lay 
whole armies groaning at his feet. The rigid application of the 
ordinary rules of composition will not answer here. In waging 
polemic war, the genius of Mr. Rogers, like that of our Nelson 
in naval fight, must be honored with a roving commission. His 
forte is his own — he must be unique. . . . Our gratitude rises 
high indeed when we consider that he has rendered signal ser- 
vice to the sacred cause of truth. We restrain our pen — and 
assure Mr. Rogers that on the subject of Popery he need fear 
no opponent — he is invincible — a rock not to be moved. In the 
forthcoming works we anticipate discussions, the very sound of 
the near approach of which, judging from the present produc- 
tion, is enough to make those whose interest and spirit lead 
them to espouse such principles, quail and tremble. . . . The 
perusal of this extraordinary book has made us feel that Mr. 
Rogers is a learned, intelligent, sound, and godly Protestant 
champion, of consummate skill and Herculean power." 

Methodist New Connexion Magazine, 



" Mr. Rogers' logical acuteness and Herculean power as a 
polemical writer, are displayed in a manner that must be truly 
astounding to the abettors of the papal system . . . The author 
wastes no time in useless parleys, but, conscious of the strength 



24 CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITIO^ 

of his arm and the goodness of his cause, he brings the heavy 
artillery of his logic to bear on the strong-holds of his enemy ; 
and having, without much difficulty, effected a practicable 
breach, rushes to the onslaught, and triumphantly completes the 
work of utter demolition .... The style of the work is lucid, 
vigorous, and melodious. * * * * A book which, as a concise 
refutation of the leading errors of Popery, so far as our know- 
ledge extends, is without a rival in the English language; and 
proves Mr. Rogers to be decidedly an original and first-rale 
reasoner; and a man who, with Davy, Drew, and others, will 
nobly uphold the literary glory of Cornwall." — West Briton. 



" This work is one of surpassing merit. It is perhaps the 
most searching and successful exposure of the errors of Popery 
which has ever appeared. Mr. Rogers has brought all the en- 
ergies of his powerful mind to bear upon the subject, and has 
made out a case against the papal system which must fill with 
alarm every votary of the Romish faith. It is a perfect armory, 
out of which, those who would fight the battles of the Protes- 
tant faith may at all times equip themselves." — Observer. 



"It is clear and simple, straightforward and conclusive, and 
altogether the most logical and searching dissection of Popery 
that we ever encountered in any form. If any person have a 
doubt between Protestantism and Popery, let him read the pre- 
sent work. Infallibility, transubstantiation, auricular confes- 
sion, &c. are each, in turn, hurled to the earth — remorselessly 
and irretrievably trampled into the mire — annihilated ; and all 
this by the clearest, the most logical, the most searching and 
irrefutable arguments. That Mr. Rogers is a man of extensive 
reading, and a scholar, is apparent from every page of his book. 
His solutions of the famous f Grecian Dilemma' and r Pseudo- 
menos,' are masterly." — Court Journal. 



"Mr. Rogers wields his polemical cudgel with terrible effect, 
hitting Rome right and left with a rapid succession of the hard- 
est blows she ever received." — Grant's London Journal. 



CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 25 

*■ An extraordinary work, full of learning and sound sense. 
The reasoning is close and conclusive, and the arguments al- 
most superabundant. One of the most remarkable productions 
of our day. John Rogers exhibits proofs of profound thought 
and extensive erudition, and will be recognised as one of the 
master-spirits of the age." — Era. 



v This is a work written with the intent to exhibit popery in 
its true light, and he who could rise from a perusal of its pages 
without having his mind stored with arguments unanswerable 
in their nature, against the monstrous politico-religious system 
of popery, can have made little use of his reasoning faculties. 
We should like to be placed on our defence, with this book in 
our hand, before the pope and a full conclave of cardinals, and 
if they chose to abide by the decision of twelve honest and 
impartial men, popery would be extinguished for ever before 
they left the jury-box. The map which accompanies the work 
we consider very valuable. It contains a graphic delineation 
of the errors of Popery, and the date of the introduction of 
each — which propositions are amply proved. The style is 
original, vigorous, and clear. The arguments are laid down 
with a force of diction which must overthrow all opposition — 
and every page contains the incontrovertible proofs from his- 
tory. We know of no work which promises more efficient aid 
in the cause of Protestantism, or which opens a sharper fire on 
the falling cause of Popery. We hope that the advocates .... 
of Rome .... will candidly confess their errors after a perusal 
of this volume. . . . We sincerely recommend the perusal of this 
book to all Protestants, and to all Roman Catholics who wish 
to know what is truth." — Dublin Statesman. 



"Seldom have we read so powerful a production. Mr. Ro- 
gers is gifted with a mind capable of the most logical preci- 
sion — no fallacy, either in doctrine or in ethics, can endure his 
searching scrutiny. Hence the various errors and corruptions 
of Popery are here not merely exposed — they are absolutely 
demolished. The author is indeed a perfect r Root and Branch* 
man ; first applying the well-tempered knife of skilful excision, 

2 



26 CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 

then using the irresistible axe of utter eradication. We would 
defy Cardinal Bellarmine himself, if he were living, to answer 

this book As an effectual antidote to Papal error, we can 

cordially recommend the very extraordinary book before us." 

Bath and Cheltenham Gazette. 



" The work is full of learning and sound sense ; and a very 
slight perusal of it will at once show the originality of Mr. 
Rogers, and that he is a profound thinker. Every thing about 
the book is original — the ideas, the style, and the construction. 
Even Roman Catholics must admit that he has placed himself 
in the position of a powerful leader of the Protestants. . . . He 
has shown, as far as argument goes, that he is possessed of a 
lion's strength. . . . We are convinced that most of our Protest- 
ant and Catholic readers will be acquainted with its contents." 

Tyne Mercury. 



rr If the cry of T No Popery'' shall have done nothing else than 
caused the appearance of this book, it will have done good ser- 
vice to mankind. A valuable, clear, and entertaining book. . . . 
the work of great labor and research, by a man thoroughly 
conversant with polemical controversy, and who yet has the 
rare power of simplifying his subject, and writing with ease, 
vigor, clearness, and benevolent warmth of spirit. No man, 
whether he be priest or layman, can peruse without advantage 
the powerful and elaborate articles in this work, on infallibility, 
transubstantiation, and tradition. 1 * — Maidstone Gazette. 



" This is an extraordinary book. We have seldom seen Po- 
pery so vigorously handled. Mr. Rogers has taken up the 
question in all its bearings, and applied to it the powers of a 
masculine intellect trained to habits of searching analysis, and 
clear, logical, bold, and comprehensive reasoning. He sifts the 
lofty pretensions, and exposes the errors and impositions of the 
church of Rome, with unrelenting severity, showing its false, 
blasphemous, and anti-social character, its hostility to Scripture, 
reason, and antiquity . . . The work will prove a valuable auxi- 
liary to the cause of Protestantism. No one possessing it, need 



CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 27 

be at a loss to give to any one that asks him, a reason for pre- 
ferring the religion of the Reformation to that of the usurping 
Italian bishop. Furnished with the weapons here supplied, he 
will be f armed at all points' for resisting the subtleties and 
subterfuges of Jesuitical sophistry, or the open denial of plain 
facts by the barefaced assertors of the liberality of modern Ro- 
manism. The author's style is free and nervous .... He has 
rendered a service to the cause of truth, of civil liberty, and of 
social happiness, which cannot be too highly estimated." 

Liverpool Courier. 



rt Mr. Rogers is a scholar every inch of him, and a man of 
dauntless mould . . The book is a good one, vigorous, racy, and 
original .... He has strength of mind and information enough 
to grapple successfully with any Goliath the Philistines may 
send against the truth." — Congregational Magazine. 



" The book contains much that is valuable, and much that is 
seasonable. Popery is making great exertions to regain its 
former ascendancy in this country. Few have the time or the 
inclination, even if they had the ability, to follow the Papists 
in their ever-recurring references and appeals to decrees of 
popes and general councils, to the dogmas of right reverend 
fathers and tradition; and a book which would furnish Protes- 
tants with arguments against the anti-christian system, without 
the necessity of having recourse to such recondite and legen- 
dary lore, was greatly to be desiderated. Such a book w r e have 
before us ... . We are convinced that a person, thoroughly mas- 
ter of its arguments and illustrations, need not be greatly afraid 
to encounter a whole host of friars, or even a general council, 
claiming infallibility as its prerogative .... Mr. Rogers proceeds 
to attack the system of Popery with right good will, and wields 
his weapons with a sturdy arm and a fearless heart. The 
towers and the battlements, the outworks and the citadel of 
her who sits on the seven hills, are vigorously assaulted, and 
irreparable damage done to her glory and her greatness. To 
change the figure : the lady on the scarlet-colored beast is made 



28 CRITIQUES ON THE FORBIER EDITION. 

to cut a very sorry figure, and is left in no very desirable plight. 
.... The book is any thing but common-place — any thing but 
uninteresting. It shows its author to be an original thinker, a 
skilful logician, a close and powerful reasoner, and a fearless 

follower of truth We take our leave of him, thanking him 

for the service he has done to the cause of truth by the stal- 
wart and telling blows he has inflicted on the head of *The 
Beast.' '" — United Secession Magazine. 



" This is altogether an extraordinary book . . . The author has 
plenty of talent and learning . . . has pith and vast stores of 
knowledge . . . His style is very quaint and rich . . . Rogers is 
terse and strong, and delights to express his thoughts in short, 
clear, pointed sentences. He is, in fact, too sparing of words ; 
and the mind has not sufficient time to rest upon a thought and 
prize its value . . . The volume is worthy of a careful perusal by 
all at the present moment, and especially by ministers. It is 
always masterly/'- Christian Journal or Relief Magazine. 



" There is enough in the material and structure of the work to 

constitute it really a good one There is an earnestness in 

the man, and withal a measure of clearness and force of concep- 
tion, which we believe will fit him for usefulness in the kind of 

labor on which he has entered We are not disposed to 

attribute his quaint style or even his new words to affectation, 
so much as to a simple honest wish to do his work well — to 
strike the nail home. . . . His work has an enlightened spirit of 
toleration. His sentences seem to come down like the blows at 
Marston Moor and Naseby. There is that sort of heartiness in 
them which never fails to interest ; and, like the true Cromwel- 
lian soldier, Mr. Rogers not only does not understand what it is 
to be beaten, but seems to be incapable of thinking that he has 

done quite enough even when his victory is complete 

There is a distinctness in all the parts, and a consecutiveness 

in the whole We trust that we have said enough to 

induce many of our readers to possess themselves of this sin- 
gular volume." — Eclectic Review. 



CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 29 

" This work evinces great mental power, combined with in- 
genuity ; and as the writer follows a process of his own in deal- 
ing with every subject that comes before him, there is much 
novelty in many of his illustrations. . . . His manner is discur- 
sive, frank, and occasionally sportive. . . . There is an ample ex- 
hibition of good sound sense ; and we look forward with plea- 
sure to the Remainder of the journey in which he proposes to 
lead us, along less beaten paths, to the palace of universal free- 
dom." — Baptist Magazine. 



w It has seldom fallen to our lot to read so very singular and 
original a volume, or one containing so much energy of thought 
and solid argument. It is the production of a man of native 
genius. His writing is terse and clear. — The work is well 
adapted to promote the cause of Christianity. We recommend 
this erudite and curious volume to the diligent and devout pe- 
rusal of our readers, being fully assured that their labor there- 
in will he richly repaid." — Wesleyan Association Magazine. 



"We must say that we rise from the perusal of the work 
with a firm persuasion that no Romanist who will candidly and 
calmly weigh all the arguments against popery which it con- 
tains, will be able to remain a day longer within the pale of 
what has been improperly called r the Roman Catholic church.' 
Mr. Rogers has assailed the leading errors and blasphemies in 
doctrine, and the most remarkable fooleries, absurdities, and 
vicious practices connected with popery, with such powerful 
arguments drawn from Scripture and reason, as cannot fail to 
carry conviction to every candid mind ; while he has so fully 
laid bare the imposture, tricks, and pious frauds employed to 
support the monstrous system, as must render it really hateful 
to all who love the volume of inspiration, and are jealous for 
the glory of God. And all is done with an evenness of temper, 
and benevolence of feeling, which cannot fail of adding weight 
to the unanswerable arguments employed. It is a work which 
all protestants should carefully read. We heartily wish that 
papists in general may read the work, as we are satisfied they 
must see that the arguments are unanswerable." 

Bible Christian Magazine. 



30 CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 

" The author here shows himself to be a most daring foe to 
the popish religion ; he takes the whole system of fraud and 
fallacy to pieces, cutting it up with the skill of an anatomist, 
and the rottenness of the whole papal constitution is amply de- 
monstrated. John Rogers deserves thanks for this remarkable 
performance. His book will do good service to the cause of 
truth, reason, and common sense." 

Sunday- School Teachers 1 Magazine 



"Mr. Rogers' writings ought to acquire popularity. The 
volume before us bears the impress of fervent piety, and of con- 
siderable mental power. It has more than common literary 
merits. Our Roman Catholic friends will do well to peruse it > 
and if they find themselves able to refute the principles of the 
author's arguments, they will have no reason to fear an encounter 
with the ablest champions of protestantism We recom- 
mend this work." Herald of Peace. 



" In discussing the branches of Romanism, the author reasons 
powerfully, ingeniously, and with considerable originality of 
method. The sections on Infallibility, Transubstantiation, and 
Purgatory, are excellent specimens of argumentation, proving 
in the most triumphant and satisfactory manner, that they are 
absurd and impious inventions, designed to uphold priestly 
power and priestly tyramry. With some of the other sections 
we have also been much pleased . . . Bearing down on popery 
with irresistible force, like a torrent, and pouring on it a deluge 
of severe and harsh epithets, the book annihilates the system . . . 
On the whole, we recommend it to our readers as an instructive, 
interesting, and amusing volume." — Orthodox Presbyterian. 



tr Upon a mature consideration of the arguments and facts 
which the learned writer of this work has produced against the 
errors of Popery, we must repeat our surprise that he has 
brought so much acuteness and such powerful reasoning to 
bear upon a subject which we had deemed exhausted. He is 
a strong and original thinker, and one of the most powerful anti- 
popery writers of the day." — Bcirs Weekly Messenger. 



CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 31 

" It confutes Papal error at all points, in a manner which it 
would puzzle the utmost resources of the Vatican to answer or 
evade. His conclusions are perfectly sound." — Patriot. 



""A work of remarkable originality, great research, powerful 
reasoning, and in various places, of a condensed nervous style 
which rises into eloquence. The force, necessity, and advantage of 
the coined words, are frequently apparent." — Morning Advertiser 



"Popery he attacks on all assailable points with very un- 
questionable spirit, very considerable skill, and abundant re- 
source. He must be considered a good soldier in the faith: 

in the days of Cromwell he would have been inestimable 

He is a vigorous controversialist. 

" The Grecian Dilemma and Pseudomenos set all philosophy 
at defiance, and remained to be solved by John Rogers." 

Morning Herald. 



"Popery* is examined and considered in all its features, bear- 
ings, and pretensions ; and its dark and soul-destroying princi- 
ples thoroughly exposed. There are many powerful, and even 
eloquent passages in the volume." — Conservative Journal. 



"A literary curiosity. — It is in form and substance, the coin- 
age of words, the style, and the ideas, about as singular a work 
as we ever saw. It displays so much learning and originality 
as to be well worthy the attention of the public." — Lit. Gazette. 



Tr Mr. Rogers has entered at once manfully and energetically 
into the battle against Popery, dividing his attack, if we may 
so term it, into two chapters, viz. r Popery in General' and 
r Popery in Special.' In the first chapter, he has very ably 
given the character and general repulsive points of Popery ; in 
the second, with singular power and industry, he has entered 
upon a searching analysis and confutation of its special abomi- 
nations. We would refer to his chapters on ' Infallibility, ' 
1 Transubstantiation,' and f Idolatry,' as evincing great research 



32 CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 

and acumen. Mr. Rogers seems enthusiastic in his labors, to 
which we wish all the success they seem so well calculated to 
command." — Age. 

"We cannot withhold our admiration of the manner in which 
Mr. Rogers has denounced and scattered the baneful errors of 
Popery. His facts and his reasoning as to the asserted r infalli- 
bility' of the Pope, the preposterous monstrosity of f transub- 
stantiation,' with the other manifold assumptions of papistry, 
are incontrovertible ; indeed, of such a character, that we earn- 
estly recommend them to universal perusal, truly believing that 
no tolerably intelligent Roman Catholic could soberly read 
them, and afterwards have faith in the monstrous doctrines 
which they are intended to refute." — Argus. 



" This work is strikingly original. The thoughts are original, 
the argumentation is original, the style, construction, and 

phraseology are original The thinking of the author 

breaks through all fetters or impediments, and powerfully illu- 
mines the dark mazes through which it is necessary for him, 
in pursuit of his object, to wander." — Scottish Pilot. 



"The work consists of about 380 pages of as curious original 
matter as a man may find on a summer's day, and is studded 
all over with the most recondite expressions and choice fancies. 
Mr. Rogers is very decided in his arguments and opinions. 
He belabors the Pope and the Popites most unmercifully — re- 
duces infallibility to a mere shadow — and makes minced meat 
of transubstantiation. Auricular confession is also thoroughly 
exposed, with all manner of priestal absolution and excom- 
munication — and in short, Popery in general and Popery in spe- 
cial are not left with a leg to stand upon." — Inverness Courier. 



"This work contains a great quantity of original thought, and 
is calculated to be useful in the war with Antichrist." 

Inverness Herald. 



" Among the many powerful and irresistible strokes which 
have recently fallen upon the head of * the beast,' we know of 



CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION 33 

none that has been levelled with a surer aim, or with a more 
deadly effect, than in the volume before us. We consider it, in 
every respect, an entirely original and singular work. The au- 
thor is evidently a man of very superior intellectual endow- 
ments, of a metaphysical and logical turn of mind, and accus- 
tomed to look much farther below the surface of things than 
the generality of writers. We think that his book is a heavy 
and destructive blow to the whole popish system ; and one 
which must be severely, and we doubt not permanently felt. 
His language is forcible, and his arguments clear, cogent, and 
irrefragable. On each of the eighteen heads, the author's argu- 
ment is forcible and triumphant. We have only to request 
that our readers will so far gratify themselves as to procure a 
copy of the book with as little delay as possible." 

Sunderland Mirror. 



Tf This work has a great deal of originality of thought and 
conception, and an admirable fund of new words, as well as 
new thoughts. ... Its blows at Popery are dealt very heavily, 
and the protestant clergy as well as the laity will do well to pos- 
sess themselves of this well-stored quiver from whence so many 
arrows against popery may be drawn.' 1 — Nottingham Preview. 



" This is an extraordinary work, the production of a vigor- 
ous thinker, who possesses the power of boldly setting forth 
and declaring his views .... The reasoning is powerful and 
christian, and the author, who is carried along in a fervid and 
enthusiastic spirit, occasionally gives us passages of eloquence 
as well as force." — Western Times. 



"We cannot but offer our testimony to the zeal evinced by 
the author in the prosecution of his object, as well as to the abi- 
lity and skill with which the subject is treated The ar- 
guments adduced against the tenets of Popery are both nume- 
rous and forcible, and the deductions logical The zeal and 

spirit of the work are highly commendable. The style is ner- 
vous and expressive, and the subjects and divisions lucidly 

classified It is a book of peculiar interest and value at 

2* 



34 CRITIQUES ON THE FORMER EDITION. 

this moment It is one, moreover, that may advantage 

' the Papist ' something, (though it cannot please,) whilst it 
will be sure to obtain the approbation of the Protestant." 

Skipping and Mercantile Gazette. 



" A very original book. Mr. Rogers has brought to his task 

very considerable research and much logical reasoning 

Let him but remove these defects," [i. e. some defects of style, 
&c] " and his writings will prove valuable to all the present 
age of religious controversy." — Hertford Reformer. 



" Antipopopriestian is a work evincing very considerable re- 
search, and a thorough knowledge of the points in dispute 
among theologians. ... is devoted to a full and searching ex- 
posure of the errors of Popery, . . . and will well repay the cu- 
rious in such studies for an attentive perusal."— Kent Herald. 



" Mr. Rogers has performed the task imposed on himself 
generally with clearness of reasoning and great force of lan- 
guage." — Cambridge Chronicle. 



" This volume displays great judgment and elaborate research. 
We would recommend it to all who value sound religious con- 
troversy. The author's arguments are keen and sensible." 

Northern Liberator. 



n Mr. Rogers' arguments are logical and persuasive, exhibit- 
ing an originality and strength which prove them to be the pro- 
duct of a powerful mind. He has tested popery both by reason 
and revelation, and found it miserably wanting. He has track- 
ed the Mystery of Iniquity to its hiding-place ; and the verdict 
which any honest jury would give, after hearing his evidence, 
is that which he himself pronounces,— r Popery is a cunnin* 
compound of superficial truth and solid error? " 

Londonderry Sentinel. 



THE INTRODUCTION. 



I. To you who bear the christian name, and particu- 
larly to you who are christian in name and in nature, I 
more peculiarly submit the present work, hoping that 
you will judge kindly of my motive, candidly of my exe- 
cution, and rightly of the result. What may be fitly- 
done, regard with pleasure and approbation ; and what 
may be defective, view with an indulgent and forgiving 
eye. And if your impartial reason decidedly disapprove, 
blame the head of the writer, rather than the heart. 

I come before you with a degree of solicitude, and 
with a deep and solemn feeling of responsibility to God 
and man in relation to my work now laid before the 
world. Being my first work, I have an anxiety to know 
how it will be received by the reading public ) and be- 
ing on a very important subject, I am greatly concern- 
ed that it be found likely to promote the glory of God, 
and the temporal and eternal good of mankind. The 
literary name or fortune of the author, though import- 
ant to him, is unimportant to the world \ therefore on 
that point he will say no more. But the moral tenden- 
cy of his work, the effect it may have on the present 
and future well-being of himself and other people, the 
character" it has in relation to earth, and heaven, and 
hell, and according to the infinite wisdom of God, — 
this is a matter of another kind, and of grave concern, 
and whereon the writer ought to feel and does feel 
warmly interested and awfully accountable, and where- 



36 THE INTRODUCTION. 

on the reader ought to feel an interest lively and strong, 
both writer and reader being morally bound to care and 
desire that what is written and read may forward mo- 
ral and natural good, and lead to holiness, and happi- 
ness, and heaven. May the present work aid in lessen- 
ing the immorality and misery of man, in promoting 
purity, peace and joy upon earth, and in guiding many 
an immortal soul to glory and to God ! 

We live in an eventful and even alarming time. The 
whole world is in commotion ; the world christian, 
Jewish, Mohammedan, and Pagan ; religious, political, 
and social, — all are powerfully moved to and fro, and 
their peculiarities are being tried, and being retained un- 
altered, or reformed, or ruined, " men's hearts failing 
them for fear," Luke, 21 : 26 ; and the question being 
every where put, "Watchman, what of the night 1" Isa. 
21:11. The different schemes of polity current on the 
globe, are all undergoing an ordeal ample and severe, and 
are held or repelled as deemed utile or not, utility of a 
higher or a lower kind being taken for the standard. Of 
course, a very great amount of careful examination is 
bestowed on the subject of popery. A system actino* 
with uncommon power on the fortune of many millions 
of mankind, ought to be rigidly examined and accurate- 
ly known ; and any system ought to be tested and tried 
in proportion to its effect on the condition of the world. 
All plans of polity being now on their trial, may the 
great and good Jehovah cause the bad to be removed, 
and the good to be confirmed and continued! God how- 
ever works by the agency of man ; and therefore man 
is bound to inquire in what way he can be most effect- 
ively an agent in carrying on the work of God. As a 
result of the inquiry in regard to myself, I write the 
present work, and come forward as a public opponent of 
what I deem public evil. I sincerely think that what is 
here opposed, forms a great evil ; and that in opposing 



THE INTRODUCTION. 37 

it, I am keeping in the path of duty, and concurring 
with the Divine will. And may the all-wise God of love, 
who knows the sincerity of the writer, smile on him ! 
and make the work a medium of good to many! crown- 
ing the writer and the reader with his heavenly approv- 
al, and blessing them now and for ever ! 

II. The word Kirk is employed in the present un- 
dertaking, instead of the word Church ; for kirk is the 
better word of the two, being shorter, more musical, 
and more like the etymon. 1st. Kirk has only four let- 
ters, while church has six. 2nd. The term church is 
extremely dysphonical and harsh. The beginning and 
ending of the term church, are grating and unpleasant 
to our ear. 3rd. Kirk, or church, comes indirectly 
from the Greek Kvpsou c/*c?, kuriou oikos, house of the 
Lord. Query. Ought the word to be written Kurk 1 
The kurk of Scotland I 

III. The word priest is often employed in the pre- 
sent work, to mean the christian minister or pastor. 
The word having a degree of ambiguity, and being ca- 
pable of a meaning highly objectionable, I deem it right 
to give the following explanation. Priest may have a 
twofold meaning. 1st. Being probably a contraction 
of presbyter, it may mean the same thing, namely, elder, 
minister, preacher, pastor, or the like. 2nd. It may 
mean sacrificing priest, or sacrificer. The word priest 
taken in the latter meaning, that of sacrificer, is offen- 
sive and painful to the truly christian or truly protest- 
ant ear; and ought to be avoided as a fragment of papal 
corruption, and even of Judaism. Christianity knows 
no other sacrifice than the one great sacrifice of Christ, 
completed on the cross. She knows nothing of the 
pretended sacrifice of the mass, that huge fable of popery. 
The word priest, taken in the former meaning, that of 
presbyter or pastor, may be fitly employed in conver 
sation, a speech a sermon or a book. The word is em- 



38 HE INTRODUCTION. 

ployed in the former signification, throughout my work, 
whether simply, as priest, or compoundly, as priesthood, 
priestal,* and the like. 

IV. I indulge the hope that, in composing the work, 
I shall carefully avoid railing, angry terms, and bitter 
language. The foul epithet, bad name, scurrile phrase, 
ology, and personal invective, often found to come from 
pen and tongue, ought to be declined and shunned, for 
they do no good, and do great harm. The employment 
of them will foster bad feeling in the writer or speaker, 
affect with pain, and provoke to sin, the reader or hear- 
er, make a good argument often appear a bad one, ex- 
cite unduly the ire and sympathy of another in favor of 
the object of attack, set an evil example to the world, 
and contemn and contravene the plain declaration of 
Scripture, and the palpable dictate of reason. " The 
servant of the Lord must not strive ; but be gentle unto 
all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing 
those who oppose themselves. 2 Tim. 2. Speak evil 
of no man, be no brawlers, but gentle, showing all 
meekness unto all men. Tit. 3 : 2. The wrath of man 
worketh not the righteousness of God." James, 1 : 20. 

It will not follow, however, that we are forbidden to 
write or speak boldly, decidedly, and in a manner not to 
be mistaken. We are quite justifiable in using a vigo- 
rous word, a strong style, and a mode of expression 
giving our full, entire, undoubted meaning, without favor 
and without fear. Our language is not required to be 
timid, luke-warm, feeble, and finical; deprived of ener- 
gy, void of nerve, and destitute of spirit, edge, and 
point. " It is good to be zealously affected always in a 
good thing. Gal. 4 : 18. Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy 
voice like a trumpet, and show my people their trans- 

* The word pricstal, comes regularly from priest, and is a proper 
adjective. 



THE IKTRODUCTION. 39 

gression, and the house of Jacob their sins. Isaiah, 58 : 1. 
Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the 
faith." Titus, 1 : 13. 

I hope carefully to control my temper, and to be cool 
and cautious; and yet to keep my ardor, and to be zea- 
lous and warm. Kind and gentle, yet decisive and firm \ 
pleading soberly, yet strongly \ having love for my oppo- 
nent, but greater love for truth. Bishop Burnet wrote, 
tf Whatever moderation or charity we may owe to men's 
persons, we owe none at all to their errors, and to that 
frame which is built on and supported oy them." Soft 
word and hard argument — is undoubtedly a good rule ; 
but beware of going to the hurtful extreme ; and let not 
the softness of the former enfeeble and nullify the 
hardness of the latter. Suaviter in mo do, fort iter in re. 

V. Some may object that I employ too condemnatory 
language, write in a strain of undue severity, and be- 
tray too much of the spirit of carnal censure, and too 
little of that of christian love. They may object that the 
style is too cutting, and the spirit too severe ; and that 
popery, considering the moderate measure wherein it is 
held by enlightened men, is treated in a way somewhat 
harsh, sarcastic, and bitter. 

I however beg the objector to bear in mind that my 
book is written not merely against moderate popery, 
popery deprived of its worse qualities, the system of en- 
lightened, excellent, liberal men ) but also against full- 
grown and exclusive popery, popery in its most hideous 
form, popery as held by the bigot, the persecutor, and 
the mental slave. I attack with severity, not the popery 
of Fenelon, Pascal, and Gregory Lopez, but that of 
Hildebrand, Bonner, and bloody Mary ; not the popery 
that granted the edict of Nantes, but that which revoked 
it ; not the popery that, by going little beyond protest- 
antism, and so by allowing the more of protestant opera- 
tion, leads in a degree, to happiness here, and to salva- 



40 THE INTRODUCTION. 

tion hereafter, but that which, as a full-grown or mere- 
ly carnal and prideful scheme, rides rough-shod over 
soul, body, and estate, and puts people into purgatory, 
in order to be well paid [or putting them out. I write to 
oppose less popery as appearing in Great Britain, than 
popery as existing in Italy and Spain ; less popery as 
held in check by the vicinity of the purer and more 
liberal spirit of protestantism, than popery as having 
the whole field to itself, and showing its corruption and 
illiberality aloof .from the rebuke and counteraction of 
a better system. In brief, I delineate popery as it has 
been, as it is where its spirit and principle can work 
without control, and as it will be where and when able, 
while darkness shall be dark, cruelty cruel, and corrup- 
tion corrupt. 

Examples. " When we contemplate popery upheld by 
intolerating persecution and the infernal inquisition, 
&c." Chapter first, section 1, S. 2, A. 3. ft So far as I 
understand the papal doctrine of merit, as exhibited in 
the prosperous and palmy days of popery, or as grown 
to the full, &c." Chapter 2, section 12. " What does 
the doctrine mean, when fully carried out, when taken 
in its whole extent, in its length, breadth, and depth 1" 
Chapter second, section 14. 

After giving the foregoing reason for not handling 
popery in a softer and gentler mode, I may surely add, 
that they whom I oppose have no good ground in the 
strong and uncompromising language employed, for 
throwing my book aside without perusal. Let them act 
as generous and manly opponents, not abusing my book, 
but using it ; not flinging it away in a fit of ill nature, but 
frankly and honestly weighing its arguments and ex- 
amining its value. May the work have fair play with 
friend and foe, being received with candor, and read 
with impartiality and a sincere desire to find and follow 
truth, even by the large party whom it is written to op- 



THE INTRODUCTION. 41 

pose! May the papal party, against whom the work is 
aimed, peruse it with care ; may they " read, mark, 
learn, and inwardly digest it !" 

VI. Popery leads to Infidelity, being a very plentiful 
cause hereof 5 it tends to form, to foster, to harden in- 
fidels, and to encourage them to continue their despe- 
rate career. This is a painful thought, but not more 
painful than true, as will be made to appear. 

Theory. When unconverted people see Christianity 
mingled with the error, the superstition, the crime, the 
abomination of popery, of full-formed or perfect popery ; 
see the rational and noble doctrines of the Bible joined 
to, and disfigured by the absurd and monstrous inven- 
tions of the " man of sin, the son of perdition 5" 2 
Thess. 2 : 3, see the pure precept of the Gospel disre- 
garded and forgotten amid the foul practice and corrupt 
doing of the papal kirk 5 see the holy and heavenly 
spirit of God's word, " swallowed up and lost" in'the 
wide ocean of papal ignorance, vice, misery, of papal 
heresy and immorality, of papal fraud and hypocrisy, 
cruelty and satanical oppression, mammonism and ex- 
tortion, lust and sensuality, anger, envy and malignity; 
see Jesus Christ compelled to appear in unnatural alli- 
ance with the Pope and the devil, the holy and benevo- 
lent Jesus having often appeared allied with a profane 
and profligate Pope and the deceiving and devouring 
devil; is it improbable, is it unnatural that the uncon- 
verted people will confound Christianity with popery, 
and will oppose the former, in order effectively to ex- 
pel the latter'? 

Practice. The papal world is full of infidels ; popery, 
in the countries where she claims to reign supreme, is 
jostled and elbowed by infidelity ; papal superstition 
and infidel devastation appear, in a large part of the 
christian world, to contend for an ignoble masterdom ; 
and Italy, the unholy land of his holiness or unholiness 



42 THE INTRODUCTION. 

the pope, has been affirmed to contain more of the infi- 
del tribe than any other nation in Europe. 

Reader, think now of the fearful character of popery, 
and of its melancholy effect in the formation of the in- 
fidel. Whether we consult theory or practice, reason- 
ing or fact, we find the result to be that popery is the 
forerunner of infidelity ; that papal perversion brings on 
infidel infatuation and impiety, or that Rome papal great- 
ly tends to form the character, to confirm the hardihood, 
and therefore to augment the number of the miserable 
men termed infidels. Popery leads men to oppose 
Christianity, and even to deem her untrue, unholy, and 
unhappy. Papal seed gives an infidel crop. In fine, po- 
pery draws men to doubt and reject revelation, and 
makes them run blindly, carelessly, desperately into 
that awful world where the doom of mankind will be 
either the happiness of heaven, or the misery of hell ! 
either joy inconceivable, or sorrow beyond compare ! 

With heavenly pleasure bless'd, or curs'd with hellish pain ! 
With angels gloried, or with devils dammed ! 

VII. Popery delays the conversion to Christianity of 
Jew, Mohammedan, and Heathen. It does the thing in a 
two-fold way, by making christian less willing, worthy, 
and able to convey, and by making Jew, Mohammedan, 
and Heathen less willing to receive Christianity. 

The effect of popery on the christian as the conveyer 
of Christianity. Because of the hurtful operation of the 
papal bad scheme among christian people, christian 
kirks and individuals make fewer and smaller efforts ex- 
clusively and purely to christianize the world, and to 
gather the Jewish, Mohammedan, and Heathen portions 
into the fold of Christ. Popery exerts a baneful and be- 
numming effect on the head, and heart, and hand of the 
christian world, lies heavily on the holy active energy 



THE INTRODUCTION. 43 

of Christendom, and wofully impedes the truly mission- 
ary and evangelizing labor of worthy and pious people. 
Because of popery, there is less will and moral ability 
for the scriptural and saving conversion of Jew, Moham- 
medan, and Heathen ; there being a smaller portion of 
people christian in nature, or a greater proportion chris- 
tian in mere name. Moreover, because of popery, the 
comparatively few real christians have less natural abi- 
lity for the real and rational conversion of Jew, Moham- 
medan, and Heathen, as will appear by the following 
three reasons. 1st. Real christians have less power and 
effect for good. 2nd. They have less time, being occu- 
pied in papal contention and debate. 3rd. They have 
less union. 

The effect of popery on Jew, Mohammedan, and Hea- 
then, as receivers of Christianity. Popery, clouding the 
heavenly beauty of Christianity, and hindering her bene- 
ficent and healing operation, makes Jew, Mohammedan 
and Heathen less inclined to receive her, less prone to 
take her for their place of refuge, safety, and comfort ; 
for their guide through life, and their hope in death. 
The papal scheme will bring the three kinds of people to 
eye Christianity with something like suspicion and un- 
favorable feeling 5 will lead them to doubt her Divine 
origin, to question the uncommon purity and holiness 
of her character, and to diffide in her great utility, her 
great power and operation in promoting peace, and 
happiness, and hope. 1st. When a contemplative and 
thoughtful Jew, Mohammedan, and Heathen ponder the 
great and heavy amount of papal absurdity and wrong, 
of papal evil moral and natural, under the christian name, 
will they be forward to view Christianity as the immedi- 
ate gift of God '! They will not. 2nd. When they be- 
hold her as a mother of the papal bad scheme, a foun- 
tain-head of the sin and crime flowing from popery, will 
they be apt to regard her as the firmest friend and ally 



44? THE INTRODUCTION. 

of virtue 1 They will not. 3rd. When they contem- 
plate her as abounding in cruelty, oppression, persecu- 
tion and war ; as being a fertile origin of suffering and 
misery, will they be ready to hail her as the best bene- 
factress of mankind ! as the great spring of earthly and 
temporal joy, and of hope of joy beyond the grave, of 
pleasure heavenly and eternal 1 as the main pillar, the 
real foundation, the very life-blood of human happiness 
both here and hereafter 1 They will not. They will 
not be according to the 1st. the 2nd. or the 3rd. A 
Jew, Mohammedan, and Heathen will not easily per- 
ceive, will not readily and clearly know, and of course, 
will not take over great time and pain to inquire where- 
in Christianity is superior to their own melancholy and 
miserable system, wherein she is more Divine, more 
holy, more beneficial. Therefore accusing her of evil 
not properly her own, blaming her instead of popery, 
the real blamable, to their own system they will cling, 
her (Christianity) they will reject, God's message of 
mercy they will hear little, and heed less ; and instead 
of going to Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, holiness, hap- 
piness, hope, and heaven, will " lie down in sorrow, in 
darkness, and in the land of the shadow of death, having 
no hope, and without God in the world." Is. 50:11. 
Is. 9:2. Eph. 2:12. 

By the foregoing, we learn the lamentable effect of 
popery in retarding the sound or solid conversion of 
Jew, Mohammedan, and Heathen. We see that it goes 
directly to darken and deaden the christian world ; 
throwing a thick cloud before the moral vision, and 
bringing a withering wind or poisonous vapor upon all 
the purer and better feeling and working of the heart. 
We see too that popery goes to uphold the power 
and continue the sway of Judaism, Mohaminedism, and 
Heathenism. The papal system leads the Jew to reject 
the Messiah, the Mohammedan to repel the Justifier and 



THE INTRODUCTION. 45 

the Sanctifier, and the Heathen to repudiate the one true 
God, hindering the conversion of the three to the happy 
fold of Christ. N. B. Of course, by conversion, I mean 
real, rational, scriptural conversion ; and not a mere no- 
minal one, not a conversion that leaves the convert as 
unconverted in nature as afore, an unconverted convert, 
N. B. The Jews perhap have been kept from going to 
Christ, mainly by papal Idolatry. 

VIII. I may say for myself that perhap I should ne- 
ver meddle with the papal system, by writing this work, 
if its evil nature and bad effect had no relation to, no 
connection with the world to come, eternal joy and sor- 
row. For what is the present world, compared with the 
world to cornel A shadow. What is our life here, 
compared with our life elsewhere 1 A dream. What is 
Our pleasure or pain now, compared with our pleasure 
or pain nowafter 1* A phantasy. What is the duration 
of all the generations of mankind upon earth, compared 
with eternity 1 A moment. 

I oppose popery, and write my work, mainly and pri- 
marily on account of religion, for the good of Christiani- 
ty, to aid in saving the human soul commonly weighed 
down by sin and sorrow ) to promote, in some poor way, 
the object near and dear to the heart of God, the ever- 
lasting happiness of his rational creation. I oppose po- 
pery, principally because it opposes the grand, the fun- 
damental, the leading, the all-prevailing system of Jeho- 

* I beg leave to coin the word Nowafter, it being a more correct 
one than hereafter. Nowafter and now, both refer to duration ; but 
hereafter refers to duration, and here to expansion, here, when 
alone, having a meaning radically different from what it has when 
compounded with after. But the word here ought not to jump from 
expansion to duration, contravening logical order. We may coin a 
new word corresponding with here, as hereaway, hereoffway, or the 
like. Then we shall have the following correct arrangement : now, 
nowafter j here, hereaway, hereoffway, or the like. 



46 THE INTRODUCTION. 

rah, the system of good-will and love toward his crea- 
tures ; of freeing them from pain, and filling them with 
pleasure through all time, and through all eternity. 
I begin, continue, and end the work, chiefly through a 
strong and lively conviction of the value of a soul ; of the 
worth of an immortal mind ; of the awful importance, 
in the eye of the Bible and of reason, of a spirit who will 
have existence rolling on through eternal duration, who 
will think, and feel, and be happy or miserable for ever 
and ever; and who, if happy after death, will probably 
go on increasing in happiness while eternity itself will 
remain. 

Happy, happy are they who promote the salvation of 
souls, carefully, constantly, collectively ; in every time, 
in every place, by every mean ; from the press, in the 
pulpit, on the platform, in the parlor, and on their 
knees in private and public prayer to God ! 

Have gift and grace to thee been given 1 
Employ them to bring souls to heaven ! 

Heaven ! How cheering and exhilarating is the 
thought of heaven ! — particularly if we have a well- 
founded hope of going thither, if our heart be turned 
to heavenly things, if our soul be in a godly frame, or 
if we love God, The Good Being, Who makes heaven 
His throne. Isa 66 ; 1. Eeader, may you and I find our 
way to heaven ! 

Angelic, Godlike joy in heaven we'll prove, 

Our head being full of light, our heart being full of love. 

IX. Heaven apart, a more noble or delightful subject 
of contemplation can hardly be found, than the coming 
thousand years of holiness and happiness, called the 
Millennium. Think of the world as it has been in all 
time, and is now, and then think of it as it will be in 
the bright and beautiful day of millennial light and love, 



THE INTRODUCTION. 47 

and as it will begin to be ere very long, and what a flood 
of glory rolls on before the enraptured view of the 
mental eye ! Amid the sin and sorrow now everywhere 
abounding, amid the iniquity and misery prevailing 
throughout, how pleasing the prospect of millennial 
purity and joy ! how animating the thought that our 
globe will be occupied by hundreds of millions of 
people holy and happy ! and how ennobling the con- 
sideration of our being instrumental in bringing for- 
ward the state so full of good to man, of gratification 
to angels, and of glory to God ! But what a deal must 
be done, and what a deal must be undone afore that 
time can arrive ! Many a thing now existing will be 
thrown down, and many a new one set up ere we see 
the swelling tide of millennial wisdom and virtue. In 
particular, ere the millennium will rise, popery will fall, 
the glory of the future day being incompatible with the 
mental dark and moral degradation of papal Eome. 
And I frankly avow that I the more readily and willing- 
ly take the field against Rome, and give manly battle to 
papal error, by knowing that in wielding my pen to 
help in overturning popery, I help in preparing the way 
for the millennium ; or that in forwarding the ruin of 
the " man of sin," 2 Thess. 2 : 3, I promote the hea- 
venly rule of the " Man that is the Fellow of the Lord 
of hosts." Zech. 13:7. that the Lord may gladden, 
and convert, and save the world! turning the whole 
earth into one grand temple where he will be glorified, 
and man filled with life, and light, and love, and joy ! 

Oh what a change the world will prove ! 
A thousand years of peace and love ! 
God in the human heart will reign, 
And heavenly glory dwell with men ! 

In writing here of the millennium at large, I do not 
commit myself to every opinion put forth by millena- 



48 THE INTRODUCTION. 

rians ; and in particular, I have no concern with, and do 
not enter into the question of what kind of reign Christ's 
will be, spiritual or personal, or of where his human na- 
ture will be, in heaven or on earth. I deem it enough 
for our good, and enough for holiness and happiness, 
that our Lord will reign and rule by his spirit in the 
hearts of his people, whether his humanity will be in 
heaven or Jerusalem. But without giving or professing 
to have a decided and well weighed opinion on the contro- 
verted question of where he will be, I beg leave to make 
three short remarks. 1st. The question appears to be 
of minor moment, and to have too little practical impor- 
tance to deserve to occupy much of our time and thought. 
2nd. It appears more noble, sublime and glorious for our 
Lord to be at God's right hand in heaven, than for him 
to be in a palace in Jerusalem. 3rd. The notion of the 
personal reign appears more or less to resemble the 
Jewish earthly notion of the temporal Messiah. To 
the three remarks, I will venture to add one humble re- 
quest, namely, that people will write, and speak, and la- 
bor more in relation to where we shall be, in heaven or 
in hell, than in regard to where our Lord will be, in 
heaven or in Jerusalem. 

X. I am a firm believer in Christianity, and a profes- 
sor of religion, and one who values above all earthly 
joy, the "pearl of great price," Matt. 13 : 46 5 the 
" wedding-garment," Matt. 22 ; the " one thing needful," 
Luke, 10:42; justification from guilt, and peace with 
God through Jesus Christ, and the sanctifying and com- 
forting operations of the Holy Ghost, the well-founded 
hope of heaven. Therefore I have not, and cannot have 
identity of interest, community of feeling, oneness of 
object or unity of aim or design with infidel, sceptical 
and atheistical people either at home or abroad, what- 
ever noise and clamor they may make about liberty civil 
or religious, and however hostile and opposed they may 



THE INTRODUCTION. 49 

be to slavery and tyranny. I do not give my heart, friend- 
ship, or company to men, merely and only because they 
happen to oppose temporal slavery. For alas ! it is pos- 
sible, and even quite easy and quite common to be at 
once a foe of slavery, and a slave of sin and Satq^ ; to 
oppose despotism, without aiding piety ) to love human 
liberty, without hating human folly and human crime ; 
to be a fierce enemy of tyrannical rulers, and yet no 
friend of God. We have seen, and may now see active 
enemies of human tyrants, to be active enemies of re- 
ligion, of man's main good, of God himself ; to be firm 
allies of the devil, zealous and effective agents of hell. 
"O my soul, come not thou into their secret ,- unto 
their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united. Gen. 
49 : 6. Blessed is the man that walketh not in the 
counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sin- 
ners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. Ps. 1: 1. 
My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. Walk 
not thou in the way with them, refrain thy foot from 
their path. Prov. 1 : 10, 15. Enter not into the path of 
the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid 
it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away. Prov. 4 : 
14, 15. Evil communications corrupt good manners. 
1 Cor. 15 : 33. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 
Gal. 5 : 9. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works 
of darkness, but rather reprove them." Eph. 5:11. 

XL Great Britain and America have Owenism, France 
has Simonianism, Germany and other countries have an 
ism of similar kind. What is the nature or character of 
the several 'isms ? Do they not imply infidelity'? do 
they not appertain to scepticism 1 do they not lead to 
the dark and dreary shores of atheistic folly 1 The two 
forenamed isms, or schemes, and the like appear to me, 
so far as I know them, republications of old and exploded 
pestilent error, reproductions of what have been afore 
brought forward, examined, " weighed in the balances, 

3 



50 THE INTRODUCTION. 

and found wanting." Dan. 5 : 27. The schemes appear 
to me unchristian and unphilosophical ; irreligious, im- 
moral, and irrational. The infidel, sceptic, and atheist 
often pretend to be friends of virtue, while they are con- 
cealed and crafty allies of vice. Moreover, they often 
know very little about religion, while they fancy they 
know a very great deal. Their fancied knowledge often 
is mainly painted ignorance. 

We have now in England and America a new thing, 
or an old thing under a new name, to wit, Socialism, 
If the thing be new, it is new by diving more deeply in- 
to evil than any former scheme has done ; and as to the 
name, it is remarkable not only by being new, but also 
by being a misnomer. Regarding the thing, it is nota- 
ble privatively and positively, as to what it rejects, and 
what it receives. Among the things rejected, are Pro- 
perty, Marriage, and Religion, — three things blasphem- 
ously termed by the Socialists, the trinity of evils. Oh 
men trinally tried and bound to folly and to sin ! Of 
course they do not hold Immortality \ that bright and 
blessed ground of hope for the future ! and do hold In- 
fidelity, that dreary swamp of mere negation I Among 
the things received, are Fatalism, and perhap Atheism! 
Behold the Fatalist creed ! a miserable farrago of the 
wicked and the weak, a creed fit for none but a devil, a 
brute, or a fool ! Indeed Socialism appears a woful kind 
of compound of blasphemy and bestiality, or of devil- 
ism and swinism, and possibly began on that memorable 
day when the devils got into the swine. Matt. 8 : 32, 
Regarding the name, Socialism is by no mean to the 
point, the thing being about as unsocial as can well be 
imagined. The Socialism is doubly unsocial, dissociat- 
ing man from man, and men from God. Instead of 
terming it Socialism, we shall be far nearer the mark in 
calling it Sensualism. Oh filthy dreamers ! Oh men 
full of the world, the flesh, and the devil ! how long 



• THE INTRODUCTION. 51 

will ye wallow in sin and sensuality \ neglecting the 
soul ! despising God ! disregarding eternity ! turning 
away from heaven ! and tending toward hell ! that dark 
and dreadful gulf that yawns beneath ! that abode of 
misery and black despair ! 

Sinner, O why so thoughtless grown 1 
Why in such dreadful haste to die % 

Daring to leap to worlds unknown ! 
Heedless against thy God to fly ! 

Wilt thou despise eternal fate. 

Urg'd on by sin's fantastic dreams 1 
Madly attempt th' infernal gate 1 

And force thy passage to the flames ? — Unknown* 

u This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is 
earthly, sensual, devilish. James, 3 : 15. Thy wisdom 
and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee. Isa. 47 : 10. 
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and 
vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudi- 
ments of the world, and not after Christ. Col. 2 : 8. 
Avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of 
science falsely so called. " 1 Tim. 6 : 20. 

XII. I desire, heartily desire that the noble cause of 
liberty, both religious and civil, may have better and 
worthier advocates or champions than infidel, sceptical, 
and atheistical men $ than the holder and defender of 
the forementioned opinions, dangerous doctrine, crude 
conceit ; than the mad and miserable men, antihuman 
and antidivine, who " wax worse and worse, deceiving, 
and being deceived. " 2 Tim. 3:13. "Be ye clean, 
that bear the vessels of the Lord." Isa. 52 : 11. " Let 
every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from 
iniquity." 2 Tim. 2 : 19. 

* The word Unknown put after lines, stands for Author unknown, 
i. e. unknown to me. Lines accompanied neither by the name of 
the author or work, nor by the word Unknown, are my own. 



52 THE INTRODUCTION. 

XIII. One of the most abominable and baneful doc- 
trines ever sent into the world to corrupt and degrade 
it, one of the most depraving and disgusting proposals 
that ever sprang from a foul and filthy soul, one of the 
most indecent, immodest, impure tenets ever put forth 
by the slave of sensuality, is that of having wives or 
rather women in common. The scheme of community 
of wives or women, is perhap* the very master-piece of 
the great patron of sensual impurity, of Belial. This pol- 
luting principle, the principle of universal prostitution, 
makes a leading part, so far as I know, of the creed of 
Owenites, of Simonians, and of a like set of people in 
Germany. But the scheme of Belial will not do, and will 
not be adopted afore the Bible be burned ; ere religion 
be sent back to heaven y afore the eye of reason be put 
out ; ere philosophy be driven from the world \ afore 
mankind be turned into brutes ; ere men and women be 
brought down to the level of swine ; afore good sense, 
fine feeling, chastity, delicacy, happy home, pure plea- 
sure be banished from earth ; ere folly, brutal appetite, 
fornication, coarseness, dismal and hated home, painted, 
plated, gilded misery be rendered universal. " But this 
thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, 
which I also hate. So hast thou also them that hold the 
doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate." Rev. 
2 : 6, 15. 

Hail, wedded love ! mysterious law, true sour 

Of human offspring, sole propriety 

In Paradise of all things common else. 

By thee adulterous Lust was driven from men 

Among the bestial herds to range ; by thee 

* Why do people write perhaps, rather than perhap ? Perhap is 
better in a threefold way. 1st. It is more like the origin, per and 
hap. 2nd. It has one letter less. 3rd. It is more musical. Now let 
the three good reasons overcome the bad custom. Or if the reader 
prefer old perhaps, let him not quarrel with new perhap. 



THE INTRODUCTION. 53 

Founded in reason, loyal, just, and pure, 

Relations dear, and all the charities 

Of father, son, and brother, first were known. 

Par. Lost, B. IV. 

O happy they ! the happiest of their kind! 
Whom gentler stars unite, and in one fate, 
Their hearts, their fortunes, and their beings blend. 

Thomson. 

Granting, for the sake of argument, that Belial will be 
able to set up the libidinous scheme, people will indulge 
in obscenity and lewd living, without restraint, without 
fear, without infamy, condemnation, and disgust ; they 
will give the rein to all the contemptible, low, vile, and 
to the furious or violent passions of the fallen and cor- 
rupt human heart ; they will take their full swing in every 
kind of sensuality, and in vice less carnal or material, 
rolling and wallowing in moral or immoral mire, u wax- 
ing worse and worse." 2 Tim. 3: 13. If Belial should 
ever carry his favorite plan against Jesus Christ, (what 
he certainly never, never will do,) then we should see 
reason dethroned by passion, the soul overcome by the 
body, love supplanted by lust, virtue expelled by vice ; 
then we should see no virtuous affection, no wedded 
love, no husband, no wife, no beloved offspring ; then 
we should see the world become one boundless brothel, 
every man a lewdster, every woman a harlot, every child 
a bastard ; then we should see ignorance, and then vice 
of manifold kind and degree, cruelty, rage, revenge, 
bloodshed, murder, suicide, savagery, brutality, diaboli- 
cality overflow, overturn, overwhelm every thing good, 
pure, noble in the human heart, defile, deform, destroy 
the human creation of God, expunge our globe from the 
map of morality, and give to hell, a lewd triumph over 
heaven. 

" God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness. Psalm 
47 : 8. Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, 



54 THE INTRODUCTION. 

and is, and is to come. Rev. 4 : 8. Holy, holy, holy, 
is the Lord of hosts : the whole earth is full of his 
glory. Isa. 6 : 3. For thus saith the high and lofty One 
that inhabiteth eternity, Whose name is Holy ; I dwell 
in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a 
contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the 
humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. 
Isa. 57 : 15. Holiness to the Lord. Exod. 28 : 36. 
and 39:30. Zech. 14:20. As He who hath called 
you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversa- 
tion. Because it is written, Be ye holy ; for I am holy. 

1 Peter, 1 : 15, 16. Follow peace with all men, and holi- 
ness, without which no man shall see the Lord. Heb. 
12 : 14. Having therefore these promises, dearly be- 
loved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the 
flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. 

2 Cor. 7 : 1. The grace of God that bringeth salvation, 
hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying 
ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, 
righteously, and godly, in this present world. Titus, 
2:11, 12. Blessed are the pure in heart ; for they shall 
see God. Matt. 5 : 8. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 
Exod. 20 : 14. The man that committeth adultery with 
another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery 
with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adultress 
shall surely be put to death. Lev. 20 : 10. Deut. 22 : 22. 
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and 
cleave to his wife ; and they twain shall be one flesh. 
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. 
What therefore God hath joined together, let no man 
put asunder. Matt. 19 : 5, 6. To avoid fornication, let 
every man have his own wife, and let every woman 
have her own husband. 1 Cor. 7 : 2. Marriage is hon- 
orable in all, and the bed undefiled ; but whoremongers 
and adulterers, God will judge. Heb. 13 : 4. Be not 
deceived : not fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 



THE INTRODUCTION. 55 

nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselv r es with mankind, 
nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, 
nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 
Flee fornication. 1 Cor. 6. The* works of the flesh are 
these \ adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lascivious- 
ness — they who do such things shall not inherit the 
kingdom of God. Gal. 5 : 19, 21. Fornication, and all 
uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named 
among you, as becometh saints ; for this ye know, that 
no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous 
man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the 
kingdom of Christ and of God. Eph. 5 : 3, 5. For the 
time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought 
the will of the gentiles, when we walked in lascivious- 
ness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and 
abominable idolatries: wherein they think it strange 
that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, 
speaking evil of you : who shall give account to Him 
that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. 1 Peter, 
4 : 3-5. The fearful, and unbelieving, and the abomi- 
nable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, 
and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the 
lake that burneth with fire and brimstone : which is the 
second death." Rev. 21 : 8. 

XIV. A wise, virtuous, and holy man finds a delight- 
ful amplitude of meaning in the word wife, taking the 
word in a sense high and favorable, and implying w T hat 
some wives are, and what all ought to aim to be. His 
wife is the sharer of all his sorrow, and of all his joy ; 
the lessener of his pain, and the augmenter of his 
pleasure ; the partaker of his care, and the refiner of 
his recreation ; his nurse and consoler when ill, his 
compeer and coadjutor when well, his associate and 
helper continually ; the companion, the counsellor, the 
comfort of his life. She is one whom he regards with 
reverence for her profound piety, with admiration for 



56 THE INTRODUCTION. 

her fine improved intellect, with kindliness for her sweet 
temper, with grateful satisfaction for her noble charac- 
ter in general. 

To her he will unbosom his thought, and lay open 
his whole soul, with most entire confidence ; to her 
firstly in time, she being the first in order of his friends, 
he will reveal his theory and practical plan, his present 
scheme and future view, his desire, hope, and fear ; and 
from her he will obtain the counsel, encouragement, and 
aid that are given by virtue, w T isdom, good temper, and 
other things, all acting unitedly or as one, and moving 
at the call of love. She will study to please him ; will 
gratify him by her obliging behavior ; will make him 
happy, and herself too, by her mild and gentle spirit, her 
complying disposition, her amiable turn of mind ; will 
bind his soul to hers by accommodating herself to him, 
and by making his joy and sorrow her own ; will main- 
tain her refining power and purifying ascendent over 
him by the beauty of her character, the dignity of her 
life, and by yielding to his reasonable request, and giv- 
ing way to his innocent wish and plan ; will turn by a 
kind word, a sweet smile, an endearing look, a tender 
tear, turn the lion into the lamb ; will control, virtually 
and really control by being willing to be controlled. 

She is one whom he loves with exclusive, with ten- 
der, with chaste, with pure affection \ one who lives in 
the very centre of his heart, one dear to him like his 
own soul, one who is another himself. She loves not 
less than she is loved, will return his affection in full 
measure, will scorn to be outdone in kind attention and 
tender care, and will find a pure and perennial spring 
of joy to her own soul, in making joyful the soul of her 
husband. 

Between them are no jarring or contrary feeling, no 
separate interest or view, no counteractive scheme, no 
mine and thine ; between them all is our, all is concord- 



THE INTRODUCTION. 57 

ant co-operation, all is living harmony, all is pleasureful 
unanimity, all is endearing unity of soul. They are one 
in outward things or external good, one in hand ; one 
in intellectual communion, one in head ; and one in the 
vast variety of feeling, in the broad and unbounded do- 
main of joy and sorrow; one in heart, having entire sym- 
pathy, or identified interest, affection and hope. 
One single soul doth in two bodies dwell. 

. They cause, one to the other, many, very many plea- 
sures 5 and they occasion one pain — the pain connected 
with parting, with being divided by death, with one of 
them being left alone, mournful, soul-sick, inconsolate, 
and gloomy. But even in relation to death, and for its 
uncontrollable conqueror and king, they see God, The 
Good Being, and their reconciled Father and Friend. 
To the Good Being they bow, in him they confide, and 
through him they are, or try to be, resigned. Moreover, 
having a hope full of immortality, they look beyond 
death to heaven, to the joy and glory of the life to come, 
when death will be swallowed up in victory, when God 
will wipe away all tears from their eyes, and when sor- 
row or pain will not be found. Is. 25:8. 1 Cor. 15:54. 
Rev. 7 : 17, and 21:4. In heaven they will be re-united 
for ever; there they will meet to part no more 5 there, 
in the beatific presence of their God, and with innu- 
merable saints and angels, they together will share and 
rejoice in God's eternity. 

Death ! 'tis a melancholy day 

To those that have no God ! — Watts, 

She will be his affectionate co-pilgrim through the 
world of sin, his faithful fellow-traveller in the way of 
holy love and labor, his watchful and helpful guide to 
glory. And probably she will be his guardian angel or 
saint, if she shall die before him ; will be his peculiar 
partner in heaven, his dearest friend among all the saints 

3* 



58 THE INTRODUCTION. 

and angels around the throne of God ; and allied with 
him by an extraordinary heavenly affection, will, ascend 
with him to higher degrees of light and love, becoming 
more and more happy in God, throughout the revolving 
ages of eternity. 

" Let every one of you in particular so love his wife 
even as himself." Eph. 5 : 33. M Heirs together of the 
grace of life." 1 Pet. 3 : 7. 

XV. I do not desire to appear to the reader better 
than I really am ; I do not incline to put myself forward, 
or before the eye of other people, as having more reli- 
gion and religious zeal than I actually have. I have 
written, in article X, that " I am a firm believer in 
Christianity, and a professor of religion, and one who 
values above all earthly joy, the * pearl of great price,' 
Matt. 13:46, the 'wedding-garment,' Matt. 22, the 
'one thing needful,' Luke, 10:4-2, justification from 
guilt, and peace with God through Jesus Christ, and the 
sanctifying and comforting operations of the Holy Ghost, 
the well-founded hope of heaven." 

But I do not profess to abound in religion, to have 
uncommon piety, or to be an extremely holy man: and 
I hope that no part of my work will be found to imply 
so great a profession. I have a share of piety, but not 
a great one ; a small quantity of religion, not a great 
deal. I do love God , but alas ! little, languidly, coolly, 
and timidly ; in a manner infinitely below the goodness 
and amahility of his character ; in a manner forming a 
poor and beggarly return, a paltry and contemptible de- 
gree of gratitude for the creative, providential, and re- 
demptional favors that I have received from his bounty ; 
and therefore in a manner that does not deserve, that 
cannot merit his continued love to me. "God is love." 
1 John, 4. " What is man 1" Psalm 8. 

Dear Lord ! and shall we ever live 
At this poor dying rate 1 



THE INTRODUCTION. 59 

Our love so faint, so cold to thee, 

And thine to us so great ! — Watts, B 2. H. 34. 

I do love the soul and eternal good of mankind ; but 
not with a burning and absorbing desire, not with a 
heart overflowing with sympathy or compassion, nor 
with a feeling duly organized and attuned by the refin- 
ing, ennobling hand of consummate charity or univer- 
sal love. Holy love has length, and breadth, and depth, 
the extremity whereof I have not arrived at or advened. 
Holy love, and light, and life, extend to a remoter point 
than I have hitherto gained, expand to a wider circum- 
ference than I have yet gone round or over, ascend to 
a higher altitude than I have attained, and have, in 
the loftier degree of human experience, an intensity, a 
thrilling ecstasy, and a power far beyond any thing that 
I have hitherto felt and experimentally known. I am a 
very frail christian, am a poor weak worm creeping 
slowly and scarce perceptibly after Christ, and enjoy 
but a feeble measure of assurance. But I do not despair 
of being better. I hope and believe that I shall be bet- 
ter, more imbued with love for God, and with love for 
the creature ; shall be more holy, more happy, more 
fully assured that my soul is safe or going on to glory. 
Whether or not christian perfection is attainable, prac- 
ticable, enjoyable in life, I give here no decided, posi- 
tive, formal opinion, It is certainly a beautiful and holy 
doctrine, and one that I incline to hold. I however am 
far from perfection. But I will try to be perfect ; and 
if I fail herein, hope to be far less imperfect than I am. 
rr I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which 
also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus." Phil. 3 : 12. 

Happy soul, when all renewed 
God in thee, and thou in God ! 
Only feel'st within thee move, 
Tenderness, compassion, love ! 
Love immense and unconfined, 
Love to all of human kind, 



60 THE INTRODUCTION. 

Love that willeth all should live, 
Love that all to all would give, 
Love that over all prevails, 
Love that never, never fails. 
Stand secure, for thou shalt prove 
All th' eternity of Love ! — Unknown. 

Every encouragement is given to grow in grace, to 
become more and more sanctified and holy, to proceed 
farther and farther in the life divine, to have more and 
more of the mind of Christ Jesus, Phil. 2 : 5, our Lord, 
Eedeemer, and Pattern, our Priest, Prophet, and King. 
If we need to encourage ourselves, we may amply do so 
by the following three delightful words, — " God is love." 

I hope I shall not offend my readers by telling them, 
in passing, that I mean to take for my personal motto 
the following six words of the Bible, — " God is love. 
What is man ?" 

If any one be in want of a motto, I beg leave to re- 
commend the following two short passages, as being, 
when joined in one, a motto very admirable. "What is 
truth ? God's word is truth." John, 18 : 38, and 17 : 17. 
Though not a son of song, I have humbly endeavored 
to form thereon a morsel of poetry. It may lead some 
one to do better. I shall be truly glad to see the thing 
finely and fully poetized by an able poetic pen. 

" What is truth V— blind Pilate cried. 
" God's word is truth,''* — did Christ decide. 
Haughty sinners seek the truth in vain, 
And rove in error's cold and dark domain ; 
Godly christians find the truth is plain, 
And freely own her holy, happy reign. 

The former part of the present article was written 
more than a year ago ; and it correctly describes my 
then state or condition relative to personal piety, or 
real, practical, experimental religion. Since writing the 
former part, however, I have made a move forth in vital 



THE INTRODUCTION. 61 

piety, have gone forward in the Divine life, and am 
nearer to the Lord now than I was then. I now love 
God and human kind more than I did, being more anx- 
ious for the glory of the former and the salvation of the 
latter. Blessed be the Lord for the onward movement, 
however small ! From him it came, and to him be the 
praise. Would that I were far more like God than I am ! 
Would that I loved him and his creatures far better than 
I do ! Moreover, I now more fully and firmly believe 
the great and glorious doctrine of christian perfection, 
or entire sanctification of heart and life. 

Holy God, regard my prayer : 

Give me perfect purity here ; 

All renew'd by the Spirit let me be : 

Bid sin from thought, word, act, e'en now to flee. 



ANTI-POPERY. 



CHAPTER FIRST. 



POPERY IN GENERAL. 



Section 1. An account of Popery. — 2. Works against Popery. — 
3. Two divisions of Christendom. — 4. Papal unity and plu- 
rality. — 5. Papite and Patriarchite. — 6. Neither Catholic nor 
Roman Catholic, but Papite, Romanite, and the like.—rl. Wor- 
thy Papites. — 8. Popery at war ivith Reason, the Bible, and 
Antiquity. — 9. A condemnation, and the time of Popery, are 
found in the Bible. 

SECTION I. 

AN ACCOUNT OF POPERY. 

Subsection /. I venture to remark that among the 
mental and moral desiderata of the present day, we may- 
rank a work against Popery. The work appears desira- 
ble because of the error and evil of popery, and because- 
of the chance that decrease of popery may be followed 
by corresponding increase of infidelity. Popery pre- 
pares the way for infidelity, being her handmaid. Infi- 
delity has been called "Popery run to seed." Where 
popery loses ground, is the vacant place filled by pro- 
testantism, or by infidelity 1 by a reformed religion, or 
by no religion at all 1 This is an important and solemn 
inquiry with all who are alive to the eternal, or even 
to the temporal welfare of man. Popery is bad, infideli- 



64 AN ACCOUNT OF POPERY. 

ty is worse ; the former corrupting religion, the latter 
destroying her. 

A good work against popery will give no aid to infi- 
delity ; for in freeing Christianity from papal innovation, 
corruption, usurpation, and fraud, it will enable her 
beauty and splendor to appear more fully, more clearly, 
more convincingly, hereby leaving infidelity without 
palliation or a plea. It follows that the downfall of po- 
pery will by no mean infer the downfall of Christianity, 
the unholy triumph of the infidel. In passing from po- 
pery to protestantism, Christianity appears like the sun 
when breaking a way through vapor, cloud, and gloom, 
gradually giving fuller, purer, steadier light. 

Subsection II. Article 1. Popery is unchristian and 
unphilosophical, unscriptural and unreasonable, a foe to 
the Bible, and a foe to logic and knowledge. Popery will 
imprison revelation, and put an extinguisher on reason ; 
and then lead her votary blinded and enslaved. Popery 
is opposed to moral and to mental eminence ; to the 
march of morality, and to the march of mind. Popery 
is an anti-christian form of Christianity, an impious in- 
novation on the Bible, a pernicious perversion of Holy 
Writ. Popery is not apostolical, but apostaticaL Popery 
is overrun by absurdity, superstition, and idolatry. Po- 
pery is a consummation of corruption. Popery goes to 
unchristianize Christendom, depriving Christianity of life 
or spirit, and turning it into a lifeless lump, or a cold, 
inanimate thing, attended with idle formality, and ac- 
companied by priestly power and presumption. Popery 
tends to slavery, the more sad and hopeless kind of sla- 
very, slavery of body, and slavery of soul ; therefore, 
he who is a real, complete, whole, thick and thin papite, 
is little or no better than a slave, a row, contemptible, 
miserable slave. That wise and good man, Richard Cecil, 
wrote, — " Popery was the master-piece of Satan. ! ' 

Article 2. Bigotry and illiberality reign in the papal 



POPERY IN GENERAL. 65 

kirk ; cruelty and intolerance form her natural element, 
her favorite logic \ the infernal inquisition is her grand 
argument. 

1st. Her bigotry and illiberality are proved by her 
monopolizing dogma of exclusive salvation, salvation 
within her pale, and only there. According to her pre- 
sumption, all' christians dying without her pale, how- 
ever christian and good in character, however holy or 
godly, are doomed to damnation ! are accursed in the 
present world, ajid will be damned in the world to come ! 
Dreadful and diabolical dogma ! How opposite the doc- 
trine of the word of God ! " Grace be with all them 
that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Eph. 6 : 
24. Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth, 
I perceive that God is no respecter of persons ; but in 
every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righ- 
teousness, is accepted with him. Acts, 10 : 34, 35. He 
that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life. John, 
3 : 36. He that hath the Son, hath life. 1 John, 5 : 12. 
He is not a Jew, who is one outwardly $ but he is a Jew, 
who is one inwardly." Eom. 2 : 28, 29. The papal 
notion of exclusive salvation, is apt, very apt to lead 
people to depend more on external conformity than on 
internal conversion ; to rely more on papal kirk-member- 
ship, than on real christian character ; and to be more 
anxious for belonging to the kirk of Rome, than for being 
adopted into the kirk of Christ and the family of heaven. 

2nd. The cruelty and intolerance of the papal kirk 
are proved by her prodigious persecution, her wicked 
wars, her horrid bloodshed, her massacre and murder. 

3rd. Her infernal inquisition, the diabolical invention 
of Dominic, is too well known to need any remark from 
me. Spain and Portugal, and their foreign dependen- 
cies, Italy, and other parts of papal Europe, can bear wit- 
ness with groaning, and agony, and blood, against that 
cursed engine of hell, that machine invented by de- 



66 AN ACCOUNT OF FOPEUY. 

mens, and worked by dembnized men. The learned and 
pious John Pye Smith declares the infernal inquisition 
to be " the most horrible tribunal that ever trampled on 
justice and human nature. " # 

Article 3. 'Really, when we contemplate popery up- 
held by intolerating persecution and the infernal inquisi- 
tion, or when, guided by the light of history, we consider 
it under the character of a mighty monster intolerantly 
persecutive and infernally inquisitional, we view not a 
thing that has a mark of the light and love of heaven, but 
one black and hateful as hell, and cruel as a conclave of 
devils ; one belched from the burning pit, and giving 
dreadful proof of its infernal origin \ one whereof the 
head or soul is not the merciful Redeemer, the Lord of 
love, but the leading devil himself, Satan, the great 
enemy of God and man, aided by Moloch on the one 
hand, and by Mammon and Belial on the other. When 
we regard popery as prevailing by persecution, and the 
pope as the prince of persecutors, we are drawn to ex- 
claim, — Let Satan be figured on the three parts, and let 
Moloch, Mammon, and Belial be figured each on one 
part of the triple crown of the pope, of the viceregal 
diadem of Satan's viceroy ! 

Article 4. Papal persecutions are declared to be the 
most prominent in history, both in nature and in number. 
They are perhap the most varied, multiform, atrocious, 
infernal, diabolical ; aud they are undoubtedly the most 
numerous and manifold. Millions, many millions, some 
declare that fifty\ millions, and some declare that even 
nearly seventy^ millions have gone to the grave through 

* See the Doctor's admirable Sermon intitled — " The Reasons cf 
the Protestant Religion," a sermon well worthy of general perusal, 
being mulium in parvo. 

t See Buck's Theological Dictionary by Henderson, article Per- 
secution. 

% See Spragues' Lectures on Religion, Lecture V. 



AN ACCOUNT OF POPERY. 67 

papal persecution ! The soil of the greater part of 
Europe has been drenched with the blood of martyrs ; 
blood spilled by the papal monster, really to attain his 
own infernal ends, though professedly (a profession im- 
plying all the hypocrisy of devils !) to uphold the reli- 
gion of the God of love ! Papal persecutions are clearly 
foretold, and powerfully drawn by the prophetic pen of 
John. M I saw the woman drunken with the blood of 
the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." 
Rev. 17:6. 

Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones 
Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold ; 
E'en them who kept thy truth so pure of old, 
When all our fathers worshipped stocks and stones, 
Forget not ; in thy book record their groans, 
Who were thy sheep, and in their ancient fold 
Slain by the bloody Piedmontese who rolled 
Mother with infant down the rocks. Their moans 
The vales redoubled to the hills, and they 
To heaven. Their martyr'd blood and ashes sow 
O'er all the Italian fields where still doth sway 
The triple tyrant ; that from these may grow 
A hundred fold who, having learned thy way, 
Early may fly the Babylonian wo. — Milton. 

Article 5. Popery has largely dealt in fraud and force, 
in guile and cruelty. Popery has carried the point by cun- 
ning wile or smooth-tongued hypocrisy, when able ; and 
when unable to carry it hereby, has had full and horri- 
ble recourse to the dungeon and the infernal inquisition, 
to the sword, the torture, and the burning pile. In 
breaking faith and playing false, the kirk of Rome pro- 
fanely pretended to promote the dominion of truth ! and 
in massacring, burning, and otherwise destroying men, 
women and children, it wickedly and absurdly pretend- 
ed to serve and glorify the God of love ! But to the Ro- 
man or papal kirk one may say, " Lie not for the truth \ n 
(or rather, for power, pelf, and the like !) " and kill not 



68 POPEKY IN GENERAL. 

men for the sake of God!" (or rather, of mammon!) 
Subsection III. A great deal of popery is will worship, 
vain invention of man, crude conceit and imagining some- 
deal systemized, an aggregate having no solid warranty, 
no foundation, no support either in revelation or in rea- 
son. Now will worship and arrogant invention are ex- 
ceedingly bad in the domain of religion, and therefore 
ought to be repelled whenever proposed. In the begin- 
ning, they are inutile, are not good ; and in the end, 
they are hurtful, antichristian, bad in a high degree. 
They being of very evil character and tendency, de- 
serve to be thrown aside as unworthy of regard, as a 
real object of sincere and hearty reprobation. They are 
proud and presumptuous, endeavoring to improve God's 
order ; an order that He has given, not to parade our 
skill in the vain and overweening attempt of mending, 
but to employ our energy in the utile pursuit of follow- 
ing, so that we may live and die holy and happy. To 
conceit ourselves capable of improving God's good and 
perfect arrangement, is to deem ourselves wiser, holier, 
better than God ! Popery abounds in things that came 
not by God's command, and that bring not God's smile 
and blessing. Do not they bring His frown and curse 1 
" Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a volun- 
tary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into 
those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by 
his fleshly mind; and not holding the Head. Which 
things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, 
and humility, and neglecting of the body ; not in any 
honor to the satisfying of the flesh. Col. 2. Who hath 
required this at your hand! Bring no more vain obla- 
tions. They are a trouble unto Me ; I am weary to bear 
them. Isa. 1. In vain they do worship Me, teaching for 
doctrines the commandments of men. Matt. 15:9; Mark, 
7 : 7. Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and command- 
ments of men, that turn from the truth." Titus, 1 : 14. 



WORKS AGAINST POPERY. 69 

Subsection IV. Popery is popery, and is to be uproot- 
ed whenever, wherever, and however it appears to our 
eye. Popery is popery, whether nakedly exposed in all 
its deformity, or partly concealed in apparel termed 
protestant ; and it is often the more dangerous by being 
disguised, as a snake hid in the grass may do more harm 
than one apparent on the beaten path. Popery is popery 
in the papal kirk, or in any other ; in Italy, or in Great 
Britain ; in Rome, or in Oxford ; in the pope, or in Pu- 
sey, Newman, Froude, and Co. Query. Are not these 
men and the like, if not decidedly papal, the pioneers 
of popery % and are not they endeavoring to bring a 
dark papal cloud athwart our clear and bright protest- 
ant firmament, by circulating the Oxford Tracts, or 
rather Oxford Trash 1 They are men to whom I cannot 
say, " God speed," 2 John, 10, 11, but to whom I rather 
say, "The Lord rebuke you." Jude, 9 ; Zech. 3 : 2. 



SECTION II. 

WORKS AGAINST POPERY. 

Subsection I. We have many an able work against po- 
pery j but perhap not one of that varied, universal, high, 
commanding character demanded by our day, and by the 
magnitude of the interest involved in the debate. A 
work is required that will wind along throughout all 
papal countries, that will be read by all papal readers, 
that will incite inquiry in all papal thinkers, that will 
command attention and examination from all literary 
men in all nations of the christian world. 

Subsection II. Indeed it may be a query if three works 
be not required : one containing clear, powerful, original, 



70 POPERY IN GENERAL. 

first-rate reasoning; one containing great and irresisti- 
ble eloquence ; and one containing vast and prodigious 
learning, particularly in theology and history; and all 
three containing pure, fervent, elevated piety. 

Subsection III. One work containing the four requi- 
sites, the reasoning, eloquence, learning and piety, would 
be a work of such uncommon character and value, and 
so truly unequalled, as to be an object of desire rather 
than of expectation. The author of the masterly, com- 
plete, incomparable work, will be a kind of miracle, and 
will be found when Locke, Milton, Selden, and Leigh- 
ton will re-appear, and be formed into one man. I opine 
that no one will ever be able to write the work, and sure 
I am that no one now alive is equal to the great under- 
taking. 

Subsection IV. I have here made an effort to meet a 
part of the demand, and have heartily wielded my pen 
to promote the well-being of scriptural Christianity and 
pure protestantism. And in aiding the protestant cause, 
I have tried reasoning more than eloquence or learning ; 
or have endeavored to show that popery cannot stand 
upon clear, strong, and solid argument, more than to 
write with a fascinating flow of style, or more than to 
go into theological, historical, and lingual particularity 
or detail. May the reader receive the work with ge- 
nerous impartiality and christian candor, and not mag- 
nify defect, nor put a harsh construction where a kind 
one is practicable ! 

Subsection V. As an equal in eloquence to Bossuet, a 
living name that would appear to many to be qualified 
for an able advocate of the protestant plan, is a great 
orator of Scotland, Chalmers. Two of the leading papal 
champions are Bellarmine and Bossuet, and one leading 
protestant champion is Chillingworth. And if the great 
orator of Scotland were to enter the field, we should 
then oppose to the celebrated names of Bellarmine and 



THE DIVISIONS OF CHRISTENDOM. 71 

Bossuet, the names no less renowned, of Chillingworth 
and Chalmers.* 



SECTION III. 

THE DIVISIONS OF CHRISTENDOM. 

Subsection I. Christendom sometime is divided into 
three grand kirks ; kirk Patriarchal, kirk Papal, kirk 
Protestant. The division, however, is not remarkably 
accurate, clear, or free from ambiguity. We may well 
speak of kirk Greek, Patriarchal, or Con slant inoplan, 
and of Kirk Latin, Papal, or Roman, the two being single 
or individual. But we may not speak of kirk Protest- 
ant, as if it were single or individual, as if all protestants 
formed but one kirk. Kirk Protestant is a term univer- 
sal, a term including many particular kirks. When there- 
fore kirk Protestant is opposed to kirk Greek, Patriar- 
chal, or Constantinoplan, or to kirk Latin, Papal or Ro- 
man, a term universal is opposed to a term particular, 
many kirks are opposed to one. 

Subsedio7i II. But though Christendom has not been 
very accurately divisible into three grand kirks, it has 
been properly divisible into three grand parts; that 
holding Patriarchy, that holding Popery, that holding 
Protestancy. The head of that part holding Patriarchy, 
is the Patriarch of Constantinople ; the head of that part 
holding Popery, is the Pope of Rome ; the head of that 

* And it would be wrong to omit the name of the venerable Ed- 
ger, of Armagh, Ireland; who has given us one of the most learned 
works of our age, in reply to Bossuet's Variations of. Protestantism. 
We allude to Edger's admirable and unanswerable work, entitled 
" The Variations of Popery" which has passed to a second edition 
in London. — W. C. JR* 



POPERY IN GENERAL. 



part holding Protestancy, is Jesus Christ. " The head 
over all things to the church. Eph. 1 : 22. Who is the 
head, even Christ. Eph. 4 : 15. He is the head of the 
body, the church." Col. 1 : 18. 



SECTION IV. 



PAPAL UNITY AND PLURALITY. 



Subsection I.. Papists are continually talking of the 
identity of creed among them, and of the diversity of 
creed among protestants. It is true that protestants are 
more divided in point of kirk ; it is not true that they are 
more divided in point of creed. Papites form but one 
kirk, while protestants form many; herein therefore the 
latter are more various and multiform than the former. 

Subsection II. In point of creed, however, papites and 
protestants, other things being equal, are about equally 
diversified ; though papal writers lead an ignorant and 
careless reader to believe that papites enjoy the advan- 
tage of uniformity of opinion, while protestants endure 
the disadvantage of multiformity. This papal mode of 
writing is unfair, is an uncandid trick. Both bodies are 
well known to differ in opinion among themselves, and, 
other things being equal, in an equal degree ; therefore 
papal pretension to uniformity of creed, is hypocritical 
farce and folly. The real point at issue, the proper subject 
of debate is the comparative degree or amount of multi- 
formity ; for by deciding this point or subject, we shall 
know if papites have smaller multiformity than protest- 
ants. A papite will find it no trifling task to prove their 
doctrinal diversity smaller than our own. Be it known 
that protestancy requires fewer creeds than kirks, or 



PAPAL UNITY AND PLURALITY. 73 

not a peculiar creed for every kirk ; many kirks, in 
point of fact, having one and the same creed. As to uni- 
formity of opinion, the assertion of it is ridiculous and 
absurd, the claim to it is founded on nonsense and folly, 
the inexistence of it is proved by clear, palpable, indu- 
bitable fact. The notion of "Unity of Opinion," is a 
mere papal \yhim, vagary, phantasm, ignisfatuus. The as- 
sumption of unity of opinion, is a mere anility or puerili- 
ty, an act of an old woman or a child, or a piece of fraud ; 
is a mere offspring of folly, or of falsehood, or of both. 
Fi?'stly. Let us view protestants taken collectively, 
taken under the collective term kirk. Papal writers will 
hardly pretend that their kirk has smaller multiformity 
of opinion than any single kirk protestant, they will 
hardly presume that one kirk protestant can be found 
having greater multiformity of opinion than their own 
kirk. They ought to know that every protestant kirk 
has power and ability for attaining real and true uni- 
formity of opinion, equally to the papal one; all kirks 
being, in this affair, on the same footing, on equal terms. 
The notion of diversity of doctrine or variety of creed, 
is not contained in the notion of kirk protestant single, 
more than in the notion of kirk papal ) the latter being 
as diverse or various in doctrine or creed, as any one 
kirk protestant. Papal writers will not venture to affirm 
that the notion of kirk protestant individual, implies the 
notion of diversity of doctrine and contrariety of creed, 
contains the notion of difference of opinion and belief, 
more than does the notion of kirk papal. Literate men 
know well that, peculiarly and exclusively, one does 
not connect the notion of particular protestant kirk or 
body, with the notion of variety and contrariety of creed. 
No kirk protestant can be fairly and truly described to 
be a scene of contrariety and confusion of creed or faith, 
to be without discipline and order, to be without means 
of promoting real and true uniformity of opinion or har- 

4 



4^b POPERY IN GENERAL. 

mony of doctrine, and due conformity of conduct. The 
description would be caricature, would be wrong in 
point of fact. N. B. Kirks protestant do not deem igno- 
rance and Insincerity to be uniformity of opinion, and 
do not deem Intolerance to be capable of promoting it. 

Secondly. Protestants taken singly or individually, are 
not more multiform and divided in opinion than papites 
taken singularly or individually, two things being pro- 
vided. 1st. Provided that papites are as enlightened 
and informed as protestants. 2nd. Provided that pa- 
pites declare and make known their opinion as fairly and 
fully as protestants. 

1st. Well informed protestants will probably differ 
in opinion more than ill-informed papites; intellectual 
protestancy will probably produce greater variety of 
opinion, doctrine, and creed in the many and varied 
modes of mental exertion, than unintellectual popery. 
Absence of opinion however is not uniformity of opinion, 
mental vacuity is not union of doctrine, mere ignorance 
differs widely from identity of creed. Ignorance is not 
uniformity of opinion. 

2?id. Protestants enjoy the privilege of declaring, 
telling, publishing their opinion under cover either of 
equality or of toleration ; while papites do not enjoy 
either equality or toleration. Ask Italy, Spain, and other 
papal countries, if persecution, if intolerance, if the in- 
fernal inquisition do not form a leading cause of doc- 
trinal agreement. If few really and truly believed in 
papal peculiarities, many would profess to do so while 
seeing, like Damocles, a sword hanging over them. 
Concealment of opinion, however, is not uniformity of 
opinion ; keeping one's peculiar view in one's own bosom, 
is not being without a peculiar view ; uniformity in pro- 
fession and external ceremony, is not uniformity in doc- 
trine and belief; secrecy of conviction, is not sameness 
of creed. Insincerity is not uniformity of opinion. 



PAPITE AND PATRIARCHITE. 75 

SECTION V. 

PAPITE AND PATRIARCHATE. 

Subsection L It ought to be borne in mind that papites, 
or Romanites, have no better reason for claiming unifor- 
mity either in creed or in kirk, than patriarchites or 
Constantinoplanites ; each sect arrogating to have but 
one creed, and having but one kirk. Therefore, what-* 
ever honor belongs to papites or Eomanites, because of 
their unreal, imagined, dreamed uniformity in creed, or 
because of their real uniformity in kirk, belongs equally 
to patriarchites or Constantinoplanites. 

Subsection II. Do the two bodies, and particularly do 
papites derive any honor from the nature of their unity 
of kirk 1 No; their kind of unity being dishonorable 
instead of honorable, being a ground of condemnation 
rather than of praise. Protestants deserve to be honor- 
ed, applauded, copied for avoiding the like unity. If 
they had but one similar kirk, and particularly a kirk 
like the papal one, they Avould have, more or less, a 
large, unwieldy, overgrown bulk, fertile in vice and folly ; 
a huge, heterogeneal, heretical system ; a big and bloat- 
ed body covered with corruption, a body without a soul ; 
a kind of moral or immoral monster. Such wholely or 
mainly is the kirk papal, and such it has long been, to 
the great degradation of Christianity, and the grave dis- 
honor of Christ. A kirk containing many millions of 
people, and comprising many countries and nations, and 
kept together by priestly rule, by kingly despotism, by 
political authority, by the magisterial sword, cannot be 
wholly christian and scriptural, cannot be otherwise than 
unchristian and unscriptural. I will end with a query : — 
the papal unity being very bad, what is the patriarchal?, 
is it good 1 



76 POPERY IN GENERAL. 

SECTION VI. 

NEITHER CATHOLIC NOR ROMAN CATHOLIC, BUT 
PAPITE, ROMANITE, AND THE LIKE. 

Subsection I. In the present work, I do not employ 
the term Catholic or Roman Catholic, but write Papist 
or Papite, Romanist or Romanite, and the like. In so 
writing, however, I am far, very far from intending or 
"wishing to hart the feeling, or pain the mind of any mem- 
ber of the kirk of Rome ; but I intend to follow a plan 
scriptural and reasonable, and to write with grammati- 
cal and philosophical propriety. I desire not to be, and 
not to appear to be offensive or insulting ; but to be or- 
derly, or to be conform to method and rule. I desire 
not to give displeasure or pain, but to have dennitude 
or precision. I aim to be accurate or correct, and to 
employ words in their right and true meaning. I avoid 
using Catholic and Roman Catholic, on five grounds; 
in order to be analogical, in order to be logical, in or- 
der to oppose papal bigotry, in order to oppose papal 
pride, and in order to oppose papal persecution. 

First, Analogical. We employ the terms popery, pa- 
pism, Romanism, and the like ; therefore we may well 
have papist or papite, Romanist or Romanite, and the 
like. Popery, papism, and Romanism being proper, po- 
pite,* papite, Romanite, or the like are proper too. 

Second. Logical. Catholic means universal or gene- 
ral, but universality or generality is very far from be- 
longing to the kirk of Rome. If that kirk were univer- 
sal or general, it would properly be called, not the kirk 
of Rome, but the kirk. Therefore it is not catholic, or 
has not catholicity. To limit and narrow the meaning, 
people use Roman catholic ; but they may about as well 

* Popitc is new, but not less correct than pope or popery. 



, 



NOT CATHOLIC OR ROMAN CATHOLIC. 77 

use particular, universal, or special, general, a phrase- 
ology clearly incorrect and absurd. That kirk cannot 
be, in one and same meaning and relation, both particu- 
lar and universal, both special and general. Being the 
former, it cannot be the latter. Therefore it cannot be, 
in one and same point of view, both Roman and catho- 
lic. In brief, universal or general being wrong when ap- 
plied to the kirk of Rome, and particular universal, or 
special general being wrong and contradictory, either 
catholic or Roman catholic cannot be right, cannot be 
logically right. 

Third. Opposing papal bigotry. If Romanites fancy 
the kirk of Rome to be catholic or all-containing, they 
unavoidably fancy all other kirks to be no real or right 
kirks at all, unkirking them, and denying their distinct 
ecclesiastical reality or rectitude. Assuming their own 
kirk to be catholic or universal, papites assume every 
other kirk to b<i merely a nominal one, or to have not 
the ecclesiastical thing, but only the name ; and hereby 
they feed their own bigotry, and confirm their illiberal 
view and feeling. By having the name catholic or gene- 
ral, they are apt to presume that they have the thing 
catholicity < >r generality , and therefore they presume 
that the papal kirk is the only real and proper one in 
Christendom ; and that every other is a mere thing of 
nought, or a vain and wrong pretender. Through their 
imaginary Catholicism, they are unjust toward other 
kirks, doing them the injury ©f denying their essentially 
ecclesiastical character, or of deeming them devoid of 
solid, reasonable, scriptural ground. In fine, their pre- 
tended catholicity confirms their bigotry, making them 
narrow in their mind, narrow and exclusive in their heart, 
and narrow and repulsive in their acting. N. B. The Ro- 
manite would take Roman catholic to mean catholic. 

Fourth. Opposing papal pride. Do not the members 
of the kirk of Rome, or many of them, pride them- 



78 POPERY IN GENERAL. 

selves on the title catholic, and arrogate to their kirk, 
on the strength and merit of their pretended catholic- 
ism, a superiority to every other kirk % They do. If 
Romanites imagine the kirk of Rome to he catholic or 
universal either in fact or in right, either de facto or de 
jure, they imagine it to be an incomparable one, an ec- 
clesiastical nonpareil ; and therefore they are liable to 
imagine themselves incomparable, and to be led away 
by inordinate self-esteem If papites take the papal 
kirk to be catholic or general either in fact or in right, 
they are tempted to be proud, and often tempted effec- 
tively. In fine, the name catholic is apt to lead them to 
think of themselves, as an ecclesiastical body, more 
highly than they ought to think. Eom. 12:3. N. B. 
The Romanite would take Roman catholic to mean 
catholic. 

Fifth. Opposing papal persecution. If papites ima- 
gine their kirk to be catholic or universal in right or 
de jure, they are prone to infer that protestants and the 
like who are not actually within her pale, ought to be 
there ; and to infer that, if they get the power, they 
may compel all Christendom to follow their catholic 
kirk, and to submit to her or their ecclesiastical rule. 
If Romanites deem the kirk of Rome catholic or gene- 
ral in right or de jure, they are apt to conclude that it 
has, or that they have a right to rule all christian peo- 
ple, and to control and compel all who are baptized. 
Building on their pretended catholicity, they are liable 
to conceit themselves a kind of ecclesiastical lords, and 
to fancy that their will ought to be the law ; therefore 
they are tempted, and often effectively tempted to be per- 
secutive, to let loose the devil of persecution, and to per- 
secute all who are out of their kirk. N. B. The Ro- 
manite would take Roman catholic to mean catholic. 

Subsection II. The words papist and Romanist are 
unmusical and grating to our ear ) therefore let them 



WORTHY PAPITES. 79 

give way to papite and Romanite, words of a sound 
musical and agreeable. I know no good and adequate 
reason for retaining the unwelcome sound of ist^ where 
we may have the melody of ite* 

In our authorized translation of the Bible, commonly 
deemed a noble standard of our noble language, we find 
not Israelist, Edomist, Moabist, Ammonist, Canaanist, 
and so on, but Israelite, Edomite, Moabite, Ammonite, 
Canaanite, and the like. Moreover, we find Elijah the 
Tishbite, Ephron the Hittite, Ittai the Gittite, Barzillai 
the Gileadite, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, 
Zophar the Naamathite, and more of the kind. There- 
fore let none blame me for making harsh ist give wav 
to euphonical He. 



SECTION VIL 



WORTHY TAPITES. 



I hope no worthy papite will be offended by the free- 
dom of my remarks. I see great difference between pa- 
pites. The name of Fenelon, Pascal, and Malebranche, 
is loved and gratefully remembered equally with that of 
Taylor, Boyle, and Berkeley.* And the protestant pub- 
lic hold in everlasting honor the name of the very holy 
people, very eminent saints, Gregory Lopez, Molinos, 
Lady Guion, De Eenty, Thomas a Kempis, and the like.f 
Though I hate papism, I love the good papist. Great 

* Yet these men celebrated mass, and bowed down before the 
wafer god, and professed all the essential peculiarities of the man 
of sin!— W. C. B. 

t These have some good things occasionally, especially Kempis. 
But those acquainted with their writings, cannot acquit them of 
Quietism, and immeasurable fanaticism. — W. C. B. 



80 POPERY IN GENERAL. 

and good people have been, and are within the visible 
and exterior pale of the papal kirk ; but they are papal 
more in name than in nature. Though within the visi- 
ble and exterior circle of that kirk, they partake not of 
her spirit ; for they acknowledge and lament her mani- 
fold abomination, they admit and bewail her error and 
her crime. Moreover, when speaking, in strong terms 
and with ample condemnation, of the papal priesthood, 
I speak not of the excellent individual, but of the body 
at large ; not of the honorable exception, but of the 
rule. Some papal clergymen have done honor to hu- 
manity, but they have been papal more in name than in 
nature. Why good men remain in the guilty and cor- 
rupt communion of the papal kirk r sanctioning, by their 
presence, evil that they condemn, but cannot prevent ; 
why they do not leave her for a better and purer plan ; 
why they do not forsake her, and hereby avoid every 
degree and kind of participation in her error, her vice, 
and her punishment ; — is indeed a solemn and awful 
question, one claiming their present, very earnest, and 
carefui consideration and regard. For their conduct 
therein, their conduct in belonging to the corrupt kirk 
of Rome, they will and must answer, and give a full ac- 
count to their conscience and to God. "Come out of 
her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, 
and that ye receive not of her plagues." Rev. 18 : 4.* 



SECTION VIII. 



POPERY AT WAR WITH REASON, THE BIBLE, AND 
ANTIQUITY. 

Subsection L Popery is contravened and condemned 
alike by the human understanding, by the word of God, 

* See the Introduction, article 5. 



POPERY AT WAR WITH REASON. 81 

and by the pure primitive kirk ; being contrary to rea- 
son, opposite to the Bible, and adverse to antiquity ; 
being irrational, antibiblical, and merely modern. And 
in a corresponding threefold way, popery may be, and 
ought to be examined, opposed, and held up to public 
view as an evil thing. The protestant advocate ought 
to show that popery cannot stand the test of clear and 
solid reasoning, cannot abide the searching and probing 
spirit or even language of Holy Writ, and cannot en- 
dure the weight of disproof given it by pure christian 
antiquity, speaking through the historic page, and the 
work of the christian father. 

Subsection IL My work however treats popery main- 
ly in the first way, showing more its irrationality and 
principally proving it to be inconsistent and at war 
with good sense and logical wisdom. But though the 
opposition of popery to Scripture is not here mainly 
exhibited, it is far from being forgotten, but is shown 
in a considerable degree ; and moreover, the papal op- 
position to antiquity will be more or less unveiled. I 
handle popery in a manner having trinal gradation, or 
three degrees : primarily, according to reason ; secunda- 
rily, according to Scripture , and tertiarily, according 
to antiquity. (See section II. Subsection IV.) In the fol- 
lowing or last section of the present or first chapter, I 
will briefly point out the leading Scripture passages 
that condemn popery ; and in section last of chapter 
second, I will curtly prove, by a short historical ac- 
count, that popery is a novelty, and has gradually 
arisen or grown up since the primitive and pure time 
of Christianity, not only since the apostolic age, but 
even since the memorable union of kirk and state by 
Constantine. 



82 POPERY IN GENERAL. 



SECTION IX. 

A CONDEMNATION AND THE TIME OF POPERY, ARE 
FOUND IN THE BIBLE. . 

Subsection L Of the places in the Bible that refer to 
the papal kirk I will here mention the following. 1 
Tim. 4 : 1-3. The man of sin or son of perdition of 
Paul. 2 Thess. 2 : 3-12. The little horn of Daniel, 
7 : 8, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26. The second or twohorned* 
beast of John, Rev. 13: 11, which probably is what is 
called the false prophet in 16 : 13 ; 19 : 20 ; and 20 : 10. 
The whore of Babylon. Rev. 17. The foregoing pas- 
sages relate to popery, and particularly to the papal 
priesthood. The four notable characters, the little horn 
of Daniel, the man of sin or son of perdition of Paul, 
the twohorned beast or false prophet of John, and the 
whore of Babylon, are all taken to mean the corrupt 
and rotten kirk of Babylon Rome, or rather the pope 
and papal priesthood. 

Firstly. The second or twohorned beast meaning the 
papal priesthood, what does the first or tenhorned beast 
mean % The tenhorned beast means popery in general , 
and the twohorned beast means popery in particular, or 
the papal priesthood. Or the tenhorned one means the 
power political, and the twohorned one means the power 
ecclesiastical. See Rev. 13:1, 11. Secondly. That the 
first or tenhorned beast means not Rome Pagan, but 
Rome Papal, will be clear by the consideration of the 
following three reasons. 1st. John saw it rise up out of 
the sea, and therefore it was to come \ but Rome Pagan 
had risen or come long afore. 2nd. It had ten horns 
or kingdoms, which Rome Pagan never had. 3rd. 

* The two horns of the second beast represent the two kinds of 
papal priesthood, the secular and regular. 



CONDEMNATION AND TIME OF POPERY. 83 

" Power was given unto him to continue forty and two 
months," that is, 1,260 years. Rev. 13: 5. 

Subsection II. Probably the Antichrist of John, and 
perhap the blaspheming king of Daniel, 11 : 36, mean po- 
pery, popery in particular. They may mean other things 
in a secondary kind of way, or taken generally. For ex- 
ample : Antichrist may mean Mohammedism, Infidelit}', 
and the like ; and the blaspheming king may mean the 
corruption of the Greek church, infidelity, and the like. 
But primarily, mainly, peculiarly, they mean the un- 
reasonable and unscriptural kirk of Babylon Rome ) an- 
tichrist probably, and the blaspheming king possibly 
being popery in particular, or the papal priesthood, and 
therefore being identical with the little horn, the man 
of sin, the twohorned beast, and the whore of Babylon. 

Firsily. Concerning Antichrist, the council of Gap 
in 1603, formally identified him with the pope. I will 
quote two periods from the Encyclopedia Britannica, 
article Antichrist. rt The point having been maturely 
debated at the council of Gap, held in 1603, a resolution 
was taken thereupon to insert an article in the Confes- 
sion of Faith, whereby the pope is formally declared to be 
Antichrist. — Pope Clement VIII. was stung to the quick 
with this decision $ and even king Henry IV. of France 
was not a little mortified to be thus declared, as he said, 
an imp of Antichrist." Secondly. Our renowned coun- 
tryman, the famous Roger Bacon, entertained no favora- 
ble notion of the christian character of the pope ; for 
that great genius and good man thought the pope to 
be antichrist, deemed his holiness supereminently un- 
holy and antichristian, and found the leading earthly 
enemy of Christ and the kirk, to be the pretended uni- 
versal bishop. 

I remark that in relation to Antichrist and the blas- 
pheming king, we meet not few difficulties, and some 
that I am not enough a Scripturian and historian to de- 



84 POPERY IN GENERAL. 

termine. A great deal of minute or circumstantial 
knowledge, Biblical, historical, and lingual, is required for 
the determination of questions relating to the foregoing 
two and other like points; and my line of pursuit is not 
there. To decide the points fully and finally, is not an 
easy affair for any one, reasons being found pro and con ; 
therefore I leave the decision to writers who make the 
interpretation of Prophecy their main and peculiar de- 
partment. And may the great and good God, the Lord 
of love, by the overruling providence without, and by 
the Holy Spirit within, guide my readers and myself in 
the way of doctrinal truth, and of practical rectitude 
and purity! Amen. 

Subsection HI. Divine Revelation declares the dura- 
tion of popery to be 1260 years. Six or seven passages 
concur in ascertaining the time. " A time, and times, and 
the dividing of time. Dan. 7 : 25. A time, times, and a 
half. Dan. 12 : 7.* A time, and times, and half a time. Rev. 
12: 14. Forty and two months. Rev. 11:2, and 13 : 5. 
A thousand, two hundred, and threescore days." Rev. 
11: 3, and 12: 6. Now a time, times, and half a time 
are one year, two years, and half a year, or 3£ years, 
years prophetical. And the old Jewish year had 12 
months, each month of 30 days; therefore it had 360 
days. And adding together the three separate sums, we 
obtain the following sum total : 

A time or one year .... 360 days. 

Times or two years .... 720 

Half a time, or half a year . 180 



Total . . - 1260 days. 

Moreover, 42 months of 30 days each, contain 1,260 
days It follows that the three kinds of expression, — 

* Does the passage in Dan. 12 : 7. refer to Popery 7 or does it re- 
late to Mohammedism, &c. 1 



CONDEMNATION AND TIME OF POPERY. 85 

a thousand, two hundred, and threescore days, — mean 
severally the same period, 1260 days. Now in pro- 
phetic language, a day is put for a year, day and year 
being identical. Numb. 14 : 34 ; Ezek. 4:6; Dan. 9 : 
24. It folldws that 1260 days are 1260 years. By the 
foregoing, we find the duration of popery to be 1260 
years. 

Though the foregoing six or seven passages prove the 
duration of popery to be 1260 years, two other passages 
make mention of two other periods, namely, 1290 and 
1335 days or years. Dan. 12 : 1 1, 12. To the great num- 
ber of 1260, a small number is added, namely, 30 or 75, 
the two latter differing to 45. Probably the plagues or 
things that will overturn Popery, Mohammedism, &c. 
will begin at the end of the 1260 years, and continue till 
the end of the 1290, or during 30 years. From the 1290th 
year to the 1335th, or during the period of 45 years, 
things will be getting settled ; peace, liberty, knowledge, 
holiness, and happiness will be gaining ground ; the king- 
dom of heaven and of God will be taking root upon earth • 
and the way will be cleared for the march of the millen- 
nial glory, by the end of the 1335 years, when Christ 
will begin to reign fully upon earth, and when the Spirit 
will begin to dwell in the heart of mankind in general. 

Knowing the duration of popery, if we know when it 
began, we know when it will end. Commentators in 
general deem popery to have begun either when the 
pope became the universal bishop, or when he became 
a temporal prince. The former view appears the better. 
Therefore we date popery from the year 606 A. D. when 
pope Boniface III. was declared, by Phocas the emperor 
of Constantinople, to be the Universal Bishop. Accord- 
ing to our view and date, the 1260, 1290, and 1335 
years will terminate in A. D. 1866, 1896, 1941. 

We do well to remember that Boniface was declared 
the universal bishop, not by Jesus Christ, nor even by 



86 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

Peter or any other inspired man, but by Phocas, a vile, 
wicked, and infernal monster, or rather an incarnate 
devil. Therefore the origin of the proud title is not 
divine, but ratherdiabolical. 



CHAPTER SECOND. 

POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

SECTION I. 

THE SPECIES. 

In order to give the reader one comprehensive and 
clear view of the many subjects that will be singly 
brought under our consideration, I will here mention 
the parts whereinto popery will be divided, putting 
them down in the special order wherein they will be 
handled. I divide popery into, and examine it under 
eighteen parts or heads, making every part an indepen- 
dent section. N. B. Popery is here taken in an exclu- 
sive meaning, or as confined to the matters that it con- 
tains in addition to Biblical Christianity, or over and 
above pure Protestantism, 

1st. Papal Primaty.* 

2d. Infallibility. 

* I write Primaty, and Supremely ; not Supremacy, and prima- 
ry. Suprematy and primaty are more musical, and more etymolo- 
gical ) and therefore doubly better. 



THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 87 

3d. Vulgate, Apocrypha, Tradition. 

4th. Knowledge a proscribed thing, and the Bible a 

forbidden book. 
5th. Unknown Tongue, or Latin the general language 

pf popery. 
6th. Transubstantiation. 
7th. The Sacrifice of the Mass. 
8th. The Worship of the Host. 
9th. Half Communion, or no Cup to the Laity. 
10th. Idolatry. 
11th. Merit. 

12th. Purgatory, and praying for the Dead. 
13th. Priestal Absolution and Excommunication. 
14th. Auricular Confession. 
15th. Celibate of the Clergy. 
16th. The Seven Sacraments. 
17th. Priestal Intention. 
18th. Superstition. 
19th. Blasphemy. 



SECTION II. 



THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 



Subsection I. In treating of the primaty or suprematy 
of the pope, I confine myself to the ecclesiastical pri- 
maty or spiritual suprematy, to the claim of the pope to 
rule the kirk, or to be her sovereign head, the primal or 
supreme, according to the following papal boast, " Peter 
and the pontiff possess the plenitude of power." I keep 
to the ecclesiastical part of the question, on the follow- 



88 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

ing twofold account. 1st. The political primaty or se- 
cular suprematy of the pope, is a doctrine so peculiarly 
and preposterously absurd, as not to deserve a formal 
refutation here. Its uncommon monstrosity renders it 
comparatively impotent for evil, counteracting the poi- 
son, and blunting the sting. 2nd. Many popites, a ma- 
jority of them, do not allow the pope's primaty politi- 
cal, do not admit his cla'im to meddle in political or se- 
cular affairs, and will not permit him to domineer over 
the temporal doing of the nations, or to order the course 
and guide the wheel of civil government. Both papal 
individuals and papal nations, private persons and the 
government, deem the pope an injurious intruder on the 
political arena, and judge the deposing and dispensing 
power, and other temporal power claimed by the pope, 
to be hurtful to the state, contrary to reason, and oppo- 
site to the current of Holy Writ. 

Subsection II. In order to prove their favorite and 
fundamental doctrine of the primaty or supreme power 
of the pope, papal folk affirm, in plain terms or by impli- 
cation, the following three things. 1st. That Peter was 
the prince of the apostles, having had a great prerogative 
peculiar to himself Or superior to theirs, namely, the 
primaty. 2nd. That Peter's princedom or primaty de- 
scended after him to all time. 3rd. That Peter's pri- 
maty or supreme spiritual power has descended to and 
through the Roman bishops, he having been peculiarly 
bishop of Rome. 

I have here to make three remarks. Remark 1st. 
The tremendous power implied in papal or rather popan 
suprematy, and the overwhelming burden hereby laid 
on the whole christian world, justify our demanding 
from Rome, proof clear, and solid, and strong; or argu- 
ment convincing like philosophical or moral certainty, 
or like mathematical demonstration, or like supernatural 
evidence and light. The apostolic princedom of Peter, 






THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 89 

the descent of his princedom or primaty, and the descent 
of it through Rome, are three things that must be proved 
beyond all doubt, must be made as clear as the uncloud- 
ed sun at noonday, must be upheld by an evidential 
power sufficient to content the reason, and to carry the 
mind of carefully inquiring Christendom. Very great 
power being; here claimed by Rome, very great proof 
must be given to substantiate the claim 5 for in prop or* 
tion to the magnitude of the privilege sought for po- 
pery, must be the evidence offered by the papal cham- 
pion. They who may lose greatly, may require great 
proof 5 and they who try to gain much, ought to be 
ready to give much argument. The primaty of the pope 
is a fundamental of popery ; therefore let it be proved 
fundamentally, firmly, fully. Geometry is built on her 
postulates and axioms, and Philosophy is founded on 
clear and solid principles ; while Astrology fares better 
with imagination than with reason, and Alchemy prefers 
the occult to the open, the dawn to the day. Now let 
popery resemble the former two, and not the latter. Let 
it clothe itself with geometrical certainty or philoso- 
phic clearness, and not shrink behind the lunacy of the 
astrologer or the dream of the alchemite. Remark 2nd. 
The foregoing three things must be proved, every one 
of them must be proved to be true, or the papal scheme 
falls ; for if only one be wrong, the scheme cannot be 
right. If any one of the three links of the papal chain 
be broken, the chain is broken ; and then it cannot drag 
along the weight of spiritual suprematy. Remark 3rd. 
The foregoing three things can be disproved, every one 
of them can be shown to be wrong ; and therefore the 
apal scheme is not only wrong, but wrong to a three- 
old degree, or wrong trinally. Oh thrice broken chain ! 
all the three links being broken ! 

Subsection III. Article 1. Affirmation first. ff Peter 
was the prince of the apostles, having had a great pre- 



90 POFERY IN SPECIAL. 

rogative peculiar to himself or superior to theirs, name- 
ly, the primaty." Now this I deny, flatly and fully 
deny, and will go on to show the utter want of proof, 
the utter want of rational and Biblical argument. 

Article 2. To show that Peter was not a prince or 
head over the other apostles, I will give ten proofs. 

Proof 1st. Peter, in his two Epistles, claims no su- 
prematy, giving not one hint in either of them, that he 
was supreme. Instead of calling himself the ruler, he 
calls himself " an elder" 1 Pet. 5 : 1. Surely if he were 
the supreme head, he would give some intimation of it 
in his writing. But Peter was not the pope, and did not 
assume what was not his due. 

Proof 2nd, Scripture affords not one real example of 
Peter's primaty over the other apostles. He nowhere 
exerts the mastery over them, and they nowhere treat 
him as being their spiritual master. In no time and no 
place, did Peter act as the apostolic head, or show him- 
self supreme over his colleagues; and in no time and no 
place, did they act as his inferiors, or concede to him 
the pretended suprematy. Neither did he actively, nor 
did they passively give ground for concluding that he 
was authorized to command, and they bound to obey. 
And that Peter had the primaty over the apostolic 
band, and yet that he and they never made it appear, 
never let it be known, he never ordering, and they 
never submitting, is a marvel of marvels, is indeed a 
miracle, is a w T onder of the world. " The other apos- 
tles acted so well as not to afford Peter an opportunity 
for exerting his supreme power in correcting them." 
Oh the rogues ! They unluckily behaved so well as to 
make Peter's primaty a sinecure ! and to keep from 
the Romanites a knock-down argument ! Pity that the 
apostles were not popes ! poor Peter would then have 
work enough to keep them in order ! 

Proof 3rd, All were alike called by Christ, and 



THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 91 

all were alike commissioned by Christ. Matt. 10 : 1, 
and 28 : 19. The power of binding and loosing was 
given equally to all the apostles. Matt. 18 : 18. John, 
20 : 22, 23. "■ Priestal Absolution^ A. 5, may now be 
read again. 

Proof teh. " It shall not be so among you. Matt. 
20 : 26. One -is your Master, even Christ, and all ye 
are brethren. 23 : 8. They had disputed among them- 
selves, who should be the greatest. Mark, 11 : 34 ; Matt. 
18 : 1. I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas. 
1 Cor. 1 : 12. First, apostles. 1 Cor. 12 : 28. Some, 
apostles. Eph. 4:11. The foundation of the apostles 
and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief 
corner stone. Eph. 2 : 20. The names of the twelve 
apostles of the Lamb." Rev. 21 : 14. Now do not these 
passages disprove the notion of Peter's primaty 1 do not 
they prove that the apostles were on an equality \ or 
do not they show that Peter's fancied princedom over 
his colleagues was quite unknown to him and to them \ 
They do. 

Proof 6th. Peter was called to account by others. 
rt They that were of the circumcision contended with 
him." Acts, 11:2. What! contend with the supreme 
head of the kirkl contend with their master 1 contend 
with their ecclesiastical king ! No, no. Away with the 
figment of Peter's supreme power ! 

Proof 6th. The apostles sent Peter and John. Acts, 
8 : 14. Truly if Peter were the prince of the apostles 
he would not be sent by them. The master is not sent 
by his servants, the ruler by the ruled. 

Proof 1th. It is certain that Peter was not superior 
to Paul, was not the head over him. Paul declares him- 
self to be " not a whit behind, in nothing behind, the 
very chiefest apostles." 2 Cor. 11:5, and 12: 11. Paul 
publicly rebuked or reproved Peter. Gal. 2 : 11-14. Now 
who do not see that, if Peter were the primal or su 



92 tOPERY IN SPECIAL. 

preme, Paul would be greatly behind him, and would 
not presume to take him to task for his fault 1 

Proof 8th. James appears more like the prince or 
head than Peter. " He (Christ) was seen of James. 1 
Cor. 15 : 7. Paul went in with us unto James. Acts, 
21 : 18. James, Cephas, and John." Gal. 2:9. James 
took the lead in the great council of Jerusalem ; for he 
clearly presided, and he gave the decision, pronouncing 
the definitive sentence, or dictating the decree. Acts, 15. 
If James were not head over Peter, Peter certainly was 
not head over James. James, or neither. 

Proof 9th. John appears to have a better right than 
Peter to the title of the prince of the apostles, as Barrow 
and others have remarked. I will give six reasons. 1st. 
John did not deny the Lord. 2nd. John asked Him a 
question that Peter durst not ask. See John, chapter 
thirteenth. 3rd. Johr was the beloved disciple. 4th. 
John had the Virgin Mary confided to his care. 5th. 
John outlived all the apostles. 6th. John wrote more 
than any one of the twelve, and far more than Peter, 
and so did greater good to the christian world. 

Proof 10th. If Peter were supreme over the other 
apostles in authority, he would very probably be supe- 
rior to them in mental endowment, in miraculous pow- 
er, or in holy attainment. But he was not their superior. 
In regard to mental endowment natural and acquired, 
he was not superior to Paul, nor to James, nor to John, 
nor to Matthew, nor probably to every other, and he 
was clearly inferior to Paul; in relation to miraculous 
power, he was not superior to Paul ; and as to holy at- 
tainment, he was not superior to John, nor to Paul, nor 
to James, (called the Just,) nor probably to all the others, 
and he was perhap inferior to John. Therefore we may 
fairly infer that Peter was not the supreme. 

Article 3. Having given ten proofs in opposition to 
the princedom or primaty of Peter, I will go on to con- 



THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 93 

sider the evidence brought by the party of Rome. We 
will examine three objections. 

Objection 1st. Peter often spoke first, and his name 
is often put first, of the twelve. Reply. Firstly. Peter 
often spoke first, or often was the spokesman or spoke- 
man of the twelve, because probably of his warm tem- 
per and natural zeal, or of his early call, or of his age. 
He appears to have been an ardent, active, ready man, 
forward to speak and forward to act, and sometime too 
forward. He appears confident, self-confident; and his 
self-confidence or presuming turn led him too often into 
fault, led him once to rebuke the Lord, and afterward 
to deny Him. Matt. 16 : 22, and 26 : 72. Secondly, 
Peter's name is often put first, probably either because 
he was the first to speak or the spokeman, or because 
he was the first or one of the first called by our Lord 
to the apostolate. How far the order of naming result- 
ed from age, I will not affirm. 

Objection 2?id. Peter received the power of the keys, 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 16 : 19. Re- 
ply. Peter had the honor of first preaching, or opening 
the door of the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles; to the 
former, on the day of Pentecost, and to the latter, in the 
case of Cornelius. Peter turned the key, and unlocked 
the Gospel door. But this work implied mere priority, 
priority in time ; but no primaty, no suprematy, no su- 
periority in rank or power. 

Objection 3rd. " Upon this rock I will build my 
church." Matt. 16 : 18. Now the church being built on 
Peter, Peter must be the supreme head of the church. 
Reply. Upon mrp* the roc k confessed, upon the con- 
fession that Peter made, upon " the Christ, the Son of 
the living God ;" and not upon Uzr^g or Peter the stone 
or piece of rock confessing, not upon the confessor, not 
upon Peter the man. Upon the rock of a noble and di- 
vine truth, and not upon the sand of a frail human crea- 



94 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

ture ; upon Jesus Christ himself, and not upon poor 
Peter, a weak, ignorant and sinful worm. Peter said, 
"■ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our 
Lord replied, Upon this rock, or truth ; this truth, firm as 
a rock, I will build my church. To prove our view to 
be correct, I will give five reasons. Reason 1st. com- 
mon sense utterly repudiates the papal view, and up- 
holds our own. Common sense or right reason cannot 
allow that our Lord built his church on a mere man, 
built it on ignorance, frailty, and sin ; or built it on some- 
thing no more able to support the burden, than a tor- 
toise w r ould be to carry the world. Common sense or 
right reason cannot admit that Christ built on a rotten 
foundation, built on the shifting sand of human infirmi- 
ty, or built a thing that must tumble down. Christ did 
not build a cathedral on a cabbage-stump. Reason 2d. 
Parallel passages prove our point. " This is the stone 
which was set at nought of you builders, which is be- 
come the head of the corner. Acts, 4:11; Matt. 21 : 42 ; 
Ps. 118 : 22. Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner-stone 
— the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is 
made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, 
and a rock of offence. 1 Pet. 2 : 6, 7, 8. The founda- 
tion of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself 
being the chief corner-stone. Eph. 2:20. They drank 
of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock 
was Christ. 1. Cor. 10 : 4. Whosoever heareth these 
sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a 
wise man who built his house upon a rock. Matt. 7 : 24. 
Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried 
stone, a precious corner-stone. Isa. 28 : 16. Other foun- 
dation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus 
Christ." 1 Cor. 3:11. N. B. In Scripture, the Lord is 
often signified by the term rock. Reason 3d. The 
original words oppose the papal whim, and show our 
view to be the right one. nirpoc, Pcfrus, or Peter is in 



THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 95 

the masculine gender, and means, a stone or piece of rock 
— a stone or piece of rock ; while Tierp*. or Petra is in the 
feminine gender, and means rock. "Thou art Peter," 
(rifTPflf or Petrus,) " and upon this rock," (iist/j*. or Pe- 
tra,) " I will build my church." " Thou art n^pog, and 
upon this n«T/>«, I will build, &c." " Thou art a stone, 
and upon this. rock I will build." Our Lord therefore 
did not build upon FIst/>o?; (a stone;) but He took oc- 
casion from the meaning of the word n«T/>sc or Peter, (a 
stone or piece of rock,) to refer to Himself as The 
Rock, and perhap significantly pointing his finger to 
himself at the same time. N. B. The apostle, having 
been aforenamed Cephas, (a stone,) John, 1 : 42, perhap 
to denote his strength or hardihood of character, is now, 
after nobly confessing Jesus to be M the Christ, the Son 
of the living God," named nerpo;, (a stone,) in allusion 
to the strength and stability of the truth confessed, and 
also perhap to his own hardy character. Reason 4th. 
Our interpretation of this noted passage of Matthew, 
was given by many of the early Fathers. It was given 
by Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Nazianzen, and se- 
veral more ; and probably by Origen and Tertullian. 
Reason 5th. Our interpretation has been given by many 
Romanites, by four or five popes, by the venerable Bede, 
Anselm, and several more. 

Subsection IV. Affirmation second. "Peter's prince- 
dom or primaty decended after him to all time." Now 
this papal affirmation I deny, flatly and fully deny ; and 
I proceed to show it to be quite unsupported by solid 
or convincing proof, or to be unproved and unprovable, 
Even if Peter were (but he was not) the supreme, the 
suprematy was a mere personal distinction, and there- 
fore did not and could not descend to any after him. If 
with Peter it lived, with Peter it died. One death took 
them both away, and one tomb holds them together. 
As Peter's shadow went with him, so went his supre- 



96 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

maty, — into the other world. It might be enough here 
to say that Romanites cannot prove their affirmation, 
cannot prove it certainly or probably, cannot prove it at 
all. They affirm, and they can do no more. And to 
their mere affirmation we might be content, as to bare 
logical requirement, with giving a mere denial. Our 
nay equals their yea. But we will not be content with 
remarking that they cannot prove, for we will go on to 
disprove. To show that Peter's primaty did not descend 
after him, I will give four arguments. 

•Argument. 2. If the supreme power be claimed by 
any one, it will probably be claimed by or for some 
bishop ; but the claim displays a daring degree of pre- 
sumption and pride. The bishop of Rome, an uninspired 
man, and often an unconverted one, a man peccable and 
fallible, and too often immoral and ignorant, has no kind 
of title to the uncommon power of an inspired apostle. 
And the bishop of any other place, has no kind of title 
to the power. The modern pretension to the power, by 
the pope or by any other man, is impudent and pro- 
fane, is a huge monstrosity. Supposing a weak, igno- 
rant, and sinful man to be the supreme head of all Chris- 
tendom, the primal or absolute ruler of the whole chris- 
tian world, the guide and lord of every member of every 
christian country, dictating what must be believed, and 
commanding what must be done, directing every head 
and every hand, — is supposing a moral impossibility, 
supposing in opposition to reason and the Bible, or sup- 
posing in a way that would lead a jury of angels to 
deem the supposer a fool, and to send him to the Limbo 
of Vanity ! How far an angel or an inspired and mira- 
culous man might wield the universal suprematy, I will 
not presume to decide ; but a mere uninspired and un- 
miraculous man might as well attempt to wield the 
moon. To what precise point the apostolic power ex- 
tended, I do not exactly know ; but whatever the full 



THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 97 

power was 3 it is not found in our day. The apostolic of- 
fice died with the apostles, the suprematy (if any) died 
with the supreme, it being personal only. If suprematy 
lived with Peter, it was crucified with him, and with its 
head downward, so that it died as certainly as he. Peace 
to its ghost ! 

Argument 2nd. That the primaty does not descend 
to our day, may be inferred from our utter want of in- 
formation concerning the legitimate line of descent. 
How do we know the real and rightful successor to 
Peter 1 how can we clearly ascertain which of two or 
more claimants, is in the direct line from the apostle 1 
how can we tell w T hether the reigning man is the primal 
or a pretender 1 Does the apparent supreme derive from 
the lineal successor to Peter, or from the party autho- 
rized to elect 1 or does he derive from his own usurpa- 
tion, or from a usurper or usurping party 1 The reigning 
man may be the first to break through the lawful line, 
or may follow an individual or a party who had broken 
through ; he may be the first or the second link of a 
new and counterfeit chain. What sure test or criterion 
have we for distinguishing the right from a wrong, the 
real light from an ignis fatuusl No sure or certain one. 
By what rule can we clearly determine the direct succes- 
sion 1 By no rule. What clew or direction is given in 
Scripture, for knowing the true line of descent, or the 
veritable descendent of Peter 1 None at all. On this 
great point Scripture leaves one quite in the dark. 
Ample direction was given for knowing the high-priest 
and any other priest under the Jewish economy. They 
were of the tribe of Levi, and the family of Aaron ; and 
therefore were easily known or distinguishable from 
members of the other eleven tribes, and from the other 
Levites. Moreover, the New Testament gives direction 
about christian ministers, who and what they are, their 
character, qualification, and the like. Paul writes much 

5 



98 POPERY IN SPECIAL 

about bishops and deacons, and what they ought to be, 
and how they may be known ; and other parts of the 
New Testament afford similar information. But no- 
where in Holy Writ do we find anything about ascer- 
taining the Supreme Head! We are not told who he 
is, or what, or where 5 we are not told how to find him 
out, or how to discern him from every or any other. 
We have no scripture rule for knowing the Supreme 
from a subordinate, the head from a member. Men talk 
and write about the identity of the body, and the identi- 
ty of the soul, and the puzzling questions connected 
therewith ; but the most puzzling kind of identity, is the 
identity of the supreme head of all Christendom. How- 
ever much we puzzle our brain here, we shall puzzle in 
vain ; for we shall find no identity, but diversity enough. 
Having therefore no information or no rule to guide us 
in tracking the line of descent of the primaty, or in dis- 
covering where or in whom the primaty is lodged, we 
may fairly infer that it is not lodged any where on earth, 
that it is not the property of any living mortal, that it is 
not found out of Christ. Not knowing where or in 
whom to. find it here below, we are certain that here it 
cannot be found. 

Argument 3rd. That the primity does not descend to 
our day, may be inferred from the utter silence of Scrip- 
ture in regard to it in any way, in regard to its descent 
abstractedly, or in regard even to its existence. Not only 
are we not told in whom it is, but we are not told that it 
is at all. We are not told any thing about the primaty, 
are not told that it descends any where, are not told 
that it is in being. Even if it lived in Peter, we read 
nothing of its living now; therefore we may conclude 
that, even if it were formerly alive, it is now dead and 
gone — never to return. Scripture nowhere makes men- 
tion either of the line of descent of the primaty, or of 
its descent at all, of Its bare being; nowhere declares 



THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 99 

in whom it shall be after Peter, or that it shall be in any 
one ; nowhere even alludes thereto. In the Revelation, 
where it would properly and very probably be spoken 
of if existing, it is not spoken of at all, John not alluding 
to it in any way. Surely the silence of John concerning 
the primaty, is remarkable, and proves the papal figment 
not to be existing, and not to be intended by the Lord 
for the kirk. John gave a kind of prophetic history of 
the kirk, but yet wrote not one word on the supreme 
power pretendedly committed by Christ to a mere man. 
Surely the silence of the apostle ought to silence the 
pope, and ought to make him and all reject the notion 
of supreme power being put in a feeble, ignorant, and 
sinful man. 

Argument Uh. That the primaty has not descended, 
may be inferred not only from what Scripture does not 
say, but even from what it does say, coupled with what 
it does not. In arguments 2nd and 3rd, we have seen 
that Scripture gives no direction for knowing its true 
line of descent, and gives no intimation that it does de- 
scend ; not telling that it descends here or there, and 
not telling that it descends any where. In arguments 
second and third, I wrote of a proper or pure primaty, 
of one agreeable to the Divine will, one derived from 
the Lord Himself; and concerning that primaty, I said 
that Scripture is silent. But concerning another kind 
of primaty, Scripture is not silent, speaking of it often, 
and in a pretty plain way. There is the primaty of the 
little horn of Daniel, or of the man of sin or son of per- 
dition of Paul, or of the two-homed beast, or of the 
whore of Babylon, or in other words, of corrupt papal 
Rome. (See chapter first, section IX.) Concerning this 
primaty, Scripture is pretty full and very severe, speak- 
ing of it often, and condemning it very pointedly and 
very strongly. Of course, this primaty is not from God, 
because it is bad, and a bad thing cannot come from the 



100 FOPERY IN SPECIAL. 

Good Being ; and because it is strongly condemned, and 
he does not condemn what is according to his will, does 
not condemn what he has set up, does not condemn his 
own work, does not condemn himself. And remember 
that the condemnation is levelled not at the mere abuse 
of the papal or Roman primaty, but at this primaty it- 
self; not at the mere excrescence or excess, but at the 
essence or existence. Remember that the thing is con- 
demned not merely for going too far or being too great, 
but for going or being at all; is condemned unreserved- 
ly, condemned altogether. Now to the candid reader, I 
put the following query. Is not the Biblical condem- 
nation of the bad or papal suprematy, coupled with the 
want of allusion to any other, an argument against su- 
prematy in the abstract 1 Suprematy is mentioned to 
be condemned, none is mentioned without being con- 
demned, condemnation of the papal being unaccompa- 
nied by commendation of the fancied pure ; and there- 
fore we may well infer that no rightful or heaven-born 
suprematy is now in the world. Were there a good su- 
prematy, would God condemn the bad, without com- 
mending the good ] would he contravene the papal or 
corrupt, without commanding the pure 1 would he speak 
frowningly of that derived from man and the devil, 
without speaking smilingly of that derived from him- 
self! No. While hurling back the primaty that came 
from popery and Satan, he would bring forward that 
which came from Peter and Christ. Were he to con 
demn the bad without commending the good, he might 
lead men to disregard the good, and so might indi- 
rectly lead them to contravene his own will ; and as 
he, The Good Being, would not lead men so, we fairly 
infer that there was not and is not a good suprematy 
To forbid the wrong or papal primaty, and not to speak 
of any other, not to except the right one, if the right 
one exist, would be to throw the right one into the 



THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 101 

shade, and to bring it into suspicion and jeopardy , and 
as God would not so treat his own institution, (his 
goodness not allowing him to do so,) we may be sure 
that the right primaty is not in being. In fine, the re- 
jecting of the papal primaty afforded the Lord the most 
opportune occasion (and an urgent one) for requiring 
the pure primaty, if it were meant to exist ; and there- 
fore as he did not require the pure, it was not meant 
to exist. 

Subsection V, Article 1. Affirmation third. "Peter's 
primaty or supreme spiritual power has descended to 
and through the Roman bishops, he having been pecu- 
liarly bishop of Rome." Now this papal affirmation I 
deny, flatly and fully deny , and I will go on to show it 
to be utterly without foundation, or to be no better than 
the baseless fabric of a dream. It might be enough 
here to say that Romanites cannot prove their affirma- 
tion either certainly or probably, cannot prove it at all. 
They merely affirm ; and to their mere affirmation we 
might be content with giving a mere negation, our nay 
equalling their yea. But we will not be content with 
remarking that they cannot prove, for we will go on to 
disprove. 

Article 2. " Peter was peculiarly bishop of Rome," 
affirm the Romanites. Now this we deny, flatly and 
fully deny ; and I proceed to show their affirmation to 
be a mere empty sound or vain boast, or to be quite 
void of solidity or of strong and prevailing proof. Who- 
ever was first bishop of Rome, Linus, 2 Tim. 4 : 21, or 
another, Peter was not, was neither first nor second. 
If Peter were (but he was not) the bishop of any place, 
he was of Antioch. In order to see that Peter was not 
the peculiar bishop of Rome, let the reader peruse and 
ponder the following six arguments. 

Argument 1st. We find in the New Testament, no 
mention of Peter's being at Rome at all, no account 



102 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

that he was ever there during his whole life. Paul no- 
where (not even in his Epistle to Rome) alludes to Pe» 
ter's being there, nor does any other of the sacred wri- 
ters allude to it, not even Peter himself. Babylon, in 1 
Pet. 5 : 13, may be the real or great Babylon the an- 
tient capital of Asia, or Babylon in Egypt, or Jerusa- 
lem, and probably the first. Now as Scripture does not 
tell that Peter was ever at Rome, we may certainly 
conclude that he was not particularly bishop of Rome. 
Were he the Roman bishop, some mention either of 
it, or of his being at Rome, would surely be made in 
Holy Writ. 

Argument 2?id. No apostolic Father mentions that 
Peter was ever at Rome ; no Father of the apostolic 
time gives ground to believe that the apostle w^as ever 
there. Peter therefore could not be the bishop of Rome. 

Argument 3rd. The earliest writers who mention that 
Peter was at Rome, do not tell that he was the peculiar 
bishop of it. They may write of his martyrdom, but 
w r rite not of his episcopate \ of his suffering and dying, 
but not of his ruling. Therefore he w r as not peculiarly 
the Roman bishop. 

Argument teh. Several learned writers, Scaliger, Sal- 
masius, Spanheim, Adam Clarke, and others deny that 
Peter ever was at Rome, deny that he either lived or 
died there. And as there is ground for doubting that 
he was at Rome at all, there is ground for being certain 
that he was not bishop there. 

Argument bth. In Gal. 2 : 7, 8, Paul calls Peter the 
apostle of the circumcision, or of the Jews. Now how 
could the active minister of the circumcision, live as 
the head minister of uncircumcised Rome 1 how could 
the peculiar apostle of the Jews, be the peculiar bishop 
of the capital of the Gentile world ! How 1 Not at all. 

Argument 6th. An apostle was not confined to one 
place, but was a kind of bishop universal, having the 



THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 103 

whole world for his field of labor. The apostolate dif- 
fered widely from a mere episcopate. Therefore Peter 
was not stationary in Rome, but travelled tip and down 
among the nations ; he was not the Roman bishop, but 
a catholic minister. 

Article 3. The primaty has not descended to and 
through the Roman bishops. Romanites cannot prove 
that it has, and we can prove that it has not. The pope 
is very many a thing rather than the representative of 
Peter. The Sovereign Pontiff of Rome papal, is the 
successor not of Peter, but of the Pontifex Maocimus of 
Rome pagan. To show that the Roman bishops do not 
inherit Peter's pretendedly supreme power, I will give 
six arguments. 

Argument 1st. John was the last of the apostles, and 
outlived Peter many years, thirty years, we are told. And 
during the whole or a part of the time from the death 
of Peter to the death of John, Linus, we are told, was 
the bishop of Rome. Now beyond all question, Linus 
was not the universal head during the life-time of John, 
Linus the mere Roman bishop was not supreme over 
John tire catholic Apostle. John was over Linus, and 
not Linus over John. This is plain from Scripture. 
"First, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, &c. 
1 Cor. 12:28. Some, apostles; and some, prophets; 
and some, &c" Eph. 4: 11. Moreover, it is plain from 
reason. The inspired apostle was superior to an unin- 
spired minister ; John, one of the very greatest of apos- 
tolic men, and the disciple uncommonly beloved by 
Christ, was greater than Linus, of whom little more is 
known than the name ; John, the direct agent of Christ 
and the Holy Ghost, the medium between the Lord and 
the kirk, and to whom the whole christian world looked 
up with awe, John was above Linus, and supreme over 
him, a man of no note in Scripture or in apostolic his- 
tory, and who appears to have been one of the many or 



104f POPEHY IN SPECIAL. 

ordinary ministers. The general commanding the army, 
is superior to a colonel of a regiment ; the high admiral 
of the fleet, is greater than the captain of a single ship ; 
and the prime minister of the nation, is supreme over a 
magistrate of one county or one town. Therefore John 
the apostle of Christendom, was above and over Linus 
the bishop of Rome. It follows that if Linus or his suc- 
cessor had the universal headship at all, he had it from 
John, and not from Peter. The surviving or last apos- 
tle John being the supreme head, if Linus had the su- 
prematy, he must have had it from John. But if the su- 
preme power descended from John to any one, it went 
to his successor, and that successor certainly was not 
the bishop of Rome. If John's suprematy lived after 
him, it lived in his own immediate follower ; and the 
follower or successor (if any) was an Asian bishop, and 
not the Roman. If the primaty be in the world at all, it 
is in Asia; therefore Rome must give up all claim, and 
be out of all hope. To sum up. John was the supreme 
over Linus — If the suprematy came down from the 
apostles, it came from or through John — Coming from 
John, it went to his successor — John's successor was 
one of Asia, and not he of Rome ; and therefore the 
pope of Rome cannot be the head, cannot be more than 
a member. It follows that the papal party should stop 
their boasting ; and that people ought to speak not of 
the suprematy, but of the subordination of the pope ; 
not of Roman primaty, but of Roman secundaty* 

Argument 2nd. The bishops of Antioch (if not those 
of Jerusalem) have quite as good a claim to succeed 
Peter, as have the bishops of Rome. Antioch has an 
equal or superior claim to Rome ; for Antioch was the 
elder see of the two, according to the Romanites, they 

* I could not well avoid coining the word secundaty ; and it comes 
as regularly from sccundus, as primaty comes from primus. 



THE PRIMATY OF THE FOrE. 105 

telling that Peter was firstly bishop of Antioch and 
lastly bishop of Rome. Surely the elder may claim be- 
fore the younger, the earlier see may take precedence 
of the later one ; this being according to the law of pri- 
mogeniture, or agreeable to the past and present rule 
of descent. Moreover, Peter lived at Antioch, and only 
died at Rome, even if he were ever there ; and as the liv- 
ing is more important than the dying, the place of his apos- 
tolic life ought to carry it rather than that of his death. 
It follows that the bishop of Antioch has a title to the 
primaty, equal or superior to that of his rival of Rome : 
firstly, because Antioch is the elder of the two ; and se- 
" condly, because it is the city where Peter sometime 
lived. N. B. Romanites affirm the kirk of Rome to be 
the Mother kirk. But the affirmation is contrary to his- 
tory and Scripture. 1st. History declares Jerusalem to 
have been the cradle of Christianity, and the christian 
kirk there to have been the earliest or mother of all. 
2nd. Scripture proves the priority of Jerusalem. "Jeru- 
salem which is above, is free, which is the mother of us 
all. Gal. 4: 26. Beginning at Jerusalem. Luke, 24 : 47. 
The word of the Lord from Jerusalem." Isa. 2 : 3. 

Argument 3rd. The primaty or pontificate has been 
stained with impiety, and immorality, and crime, many 
popes having been very guilty before God and before 
men. The ecclesiastical heads of Rome have not been 
remarkable for virtue or wisdom, neither reforming the 
world by their moral qualities, nor enlightening it by 
their mental. Instead of being pillars of piety and ex- 
amples of knowledge, they have often been quite the 
reverse, having often, too often, been supporters of sin, 
and upholders of ignorance, corrupting the world by the 
depravity of their heart, and clouding it through the des- 
titution of their head. The popes have often, too often, 
heen foes of moral purity, and enemies of mental light. 
Now were they the men to have and to wield the su- 
* 5* 



106 POPERY IX SPECIAL. 

preme spiritual power 1 to be the lords paramount of the 
whole christian world 1 or to reign and rule over the 
souls of all men and women of all parts of Christendom \ 
No. The Roman popes having been carnal, supreme 
spiritual power would fare ill with them, and would not 
be put there ) for how could sinners promote sanctity % or 
how could unholy or ungodly popes forward the interest 
of the holy Godl The Roman popes having been so 
bad, we may infer that the primaty has not been with 
them. See chapter second, section 2, argument first. 

Argument Uh. That the primaty has not descended 
to and through the Roman bishops, any more than to 
and through the bishops of Antioch, Jerusalem, or any 
other place, may be inferred from our utter want of in- 
formation concerning the legitimate line of Roman de- 
scent. (See Subsection 4. argument 2nd.) How do we 
know the real and rightful Roman successor to Peter % 
how can we clearly ascertain which of two or more 
claimants is in the direct line from the apostle % It 
would puzzle a wizard and a witch to tell how. By what 
rule can we fully determine the direct succession in 
Rome % By no rule. Who was the direct or lineal suc- 
cessor to Peter at the time of the council of Constance ! 
Martin V, or one of the three deposed antipopes 1 Which 
was the real pope, he at Rome or he at Avignon 1 And 
during the forty or fifty years of the great popan schism, 
which of the three or two contending infallibles came 
from the prince of the apostles 1 and which came from 
the prince of the devils! Alas! We are quite at sea 
here, and without rudder, sail, compass, or star j and 
we have little hope either of long remaining safe on the 
ocean, or of finding our way to port. But again. The 
popedom has been gained by political intrigue, by fraud, 
by force, by bribery, by debauchery, and the like ! It 
has been gained by a plot, obtained by a lie, won by 
the sword, bought with money, procured by a whore, 



THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 107 

and so on ! A man may become pope through a cabal 
among the cardinals, or through the influence of Italian 
princes, or through that of the king of Spain, or that 
of the king of France, or that of the emperor ! A man 
may become pope through a cunning plan of deception ! 
A man may become pope by the mean of an army ! A 
man may become pope through buying up a majority 
of cardinals ! A man may become pope by the influ- 
ence of his mistress, a lewd woman, and perhap the 
wife of another man ! And men not only may, but actu- 
ally have, actually have become popes in all these ways, 
as we too fully learn from history. Alas I Among that 
impious and immoral crowd of rebels toward God, 
where shall we look for the rightful successor to Peter 1 
How shall we find supreme spiritual power in men whol- 
ly destitute of spirituality, and quite full of carnality ; 
men actuated by no other spirit than that of the flesh 
the world, and the devil 1 What direction does Holy 
Writ afford for ascertaining the rightful Roman holder 
of the supreme power 1 None. And we having in Scrip- 
ture no rule whereby to know in what popan pretend- 
er to find the primaty, may well infer that in the popes 
it cannot be found, any more than in another episcopal 
line ; or that it is not in Rome, any more than else- 
where. In relation to the line of descent, the claim of 
Rome is not better, even if it be so good. 

Argument bih. That the primaty has not descended 
to and through the Roman bishops, or that we w T ant a 
proof of its having descended there, is clear from the ut- 
ter silence of Scripture in regard to it in any w r ay, in re- 
gard to its descent abstractedly, or in regard even to its 
existence in relation to Rome. (See Subsection 4. 
argument 3rd.) We are not told anything about the pri- 
maty, are not told that it descends anywhere or any- 
how, are not told that it is in being, in the metropolis 
or domain of popery. We have seen, in last argument, 



108 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

that Scripture nowhere makes mention of the line of 
descent of the Roman primaty, or nowhere declares in 
whom it shall be after Peter ; and we see here that Scrip- 
ture nowhere makes mention of its descent at all, of its 
bare being, nowhere declares that it shall be in any one 
after the apostle, nowhere even alludes to the pretend- 
ed primaty of Rome. As the Bible is silent relatively to 
other places, so it is silent in relation to Rome; and 
herein therefore Rome has no advantage over them, or 
has no better claim than they. 

Argument 6M. That the primaty has not descended 
to and through the Roman bishops, may be inferred not 
only from what Scripture does not say, but even from 
what it does say coupled with what it does not. (See 
Subsection 4. argument 4th.) In arguments 4th and 
5th, we have seen that Scripture gives no direction for 
knowing its true line of descent through Rome, and 
gives no intimation that it does descend there, Scrip- 
ture being silent in regard to a pure or heaven-born Ro- 
man primaty. But in relation to a primaty of another 
kind, namely, that of the little horn, or of the man of 
sin, or of the two-horned beast, or of the whore of Baby- 
lon, or in other words, of corrupt papal Rome, Scripture 
is far from silent, speaking of it largely and severely. 
Now finding that Scripture condemns the papal or bad 
primaty, without alluding to the pure one, I ask the 
candid reader if we have not an argument against Ro- 
man primaty altogether. Were there a good primaty in 
Rome, would the inspired penmen so largely condemn 
the bad, without at all commending the good 1 would 
they so fully contravene the papal or corrupt, without 
anyhow commending the pure 1 No. If they would do 
so, they might lead men to disregard the good or pure, 
and so might indirectly lead them to contravene the Di- 
vine will ; and as they cannot be imagined to lead men 
so, we fairly infer that there was not and is not a good 



THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. 109 

primaty in Rome. To forbid the wrong or corrupt 
primaty, and not to speak of any other, not to except 
the right one, if the right one exist, would be to throw 
the right one into the shade, and to bring it into suspi- 
cion and danger ; and as God's penmen would not so 
treat God's own institution, we may be sure that the 
right primaty is not in being. The Divine condemnation 
of Babylon or Rome papal, having given the very best 
and an urgent opportunity for speaking of the heaven- 
born Roman primaty, supposing it to exist, as the Di- 
vinely inspired penmen did not speak of it, we may 
deem it not to exist but in imagination. We have to 
consider that a reason exists for speaking of the pure 
primaty, taking it to be in Rome, that exists not for 
speaking of it, taking it to be in any other place, a rea- 
son relating to Rome only. The papal, or bad primaty, 
that of the little horn, the whore of Babylon, or the like, 
is represented as being in Rome, in Babylon Rome ; and 
therefore in condemning it, Scripture would be more 
likely to commend the pure or good primaty if in Rome, 
than if elsewhere. The bad system being in Rome, the 
forbidding of it would more naturally and readily draw 
the sacred penmen to mention the good one if existing 
there, than if existing elsewhere. We may infer this 
from the principle of the association of ideas in the 
mind: Rome bad readily suggesting the idea of Rome 
good, or the passing from the bad Roman primaty to 
the good one, being natural and easy. And even if the 
inspired writers should be willing to omit all allusion to 
the good one, the goodness of God would not allow the 
omission. Now, seeing that if the good primaty be in 
Rome, it would very naturally, and very probably, or 
even certainly be spoken of when the bad one was con- 
demned, we, finding it not spoken of, may fairly infer 
that it is not in Rome. 

Subsection VI. We go on to confirm the reasoning 

a O 



110 FOPERY IN SPECIAL. 

of the three last subsections in opposition to the three 
great affirmations involved in the papal claim to the pri- 
maty, namely, that Peter was the prince or primal of the 
apostles, that his primaty has descended, and that it has 
descended through Rome, To confirm the reasoning, we 
declare that the claim of the Roman popes to have de- 
rived their power from Peter, was made not from the 
beginning, but from a far later date ; not from the apos- 
tolic time, but only from the fifth century ) pope Inno- 
cent being the first who made the claim. The Roman 
bishops did not claim from or through Peter, till many 
ages after Peter w 7 ent to heaven. Now if the claim w r ere 
good, why was it not made earlier % If the pope did de- 
rive from the apostle," why not state it from the begin- 
ning ? If the pretended primaty of the Roman bishop 
were really obtained from the apostle Peter, why wait 
during four centuries or more before beginning to de- 
clare it to the world % The long delay in making the 
claim, proves that the claim ought never to be made; 
or as the claim ought not to be made during the first 
four centuries, it ought not to be made at all, or at any 
time. Delays are proverbially dangerous ; and the delay 
here, is fatal to Rome. The delay in claiming the su- 
prematy from Peter, shows that it did not come from 
him ; for if it did come from him, it would be so claim- 
ed long afore the fifth century, and even ere Peter's 
body was laid in the tomb. If the primaty really came 
from Peter, it w r ould be so claimed not only in the fifth 
century, but also in the first ; and not firstly by Inno- 
cent, but firstly by Linus the first Roman bishop. In 
fine, the long delay of four centuries or more, proves 
the claim to derive from Peter, to be a mere papal 
phantasy, or Roman romance. 

Subsection VII. Objection. If all the foregoing be 
true, if the reply to the three great papal affirmations be 
valid, and if the delay to claim from Peter prove the claim 



THE PRIMATY OF THE POPE. Ill 

a rotten one, how came the see of Rome to have the 
first ecclesiastical rank, and to be the first patriarchate, 
the first of the five, long afore the time when the Ro- 
man bishops obtained the proud title of Prince of the 
Patriarchs 1 how came the order of the five patriarch- 
ates to be, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, 
Jerusalem 1 or how came Rome to take the lead 1 

Reply. The ecclesiastical rank of the see of Rome 
was settled by councils, and therefore was of merely hu- 
man origin ; and moreover, was proportioned to the po- 
litical rank of the city of Rome. Man gave the rank, 
and gave it on political or civil ground. The ecclesias- 
tics of the day, and not Christ or Peter, gave to Rome 
the priority; and they gave it because Rome was the 
capital of the empire. The rank came not from inspired 
Peter, but from uninspired this, that, and t'other; and 
came not because Rome had any peculiar title to spirit- 
ual pre-eminence, but because it had secular or politi- 
cal preponderance as the political metropolis of the 
world. Men gave rank to Constantinople, Alexandria, 
Antioch, and Jerusalem ; and made the ecclesiastical 
rank of the sees, in proportion to the political rank of 
the cities : and what men did for these four, that they 
did for Rome. The origin and measure of Rome's rank 
may be told in two words, Human and Political. 

To confirm the two points in the foregoing reply, 
(about the origin and measure of the rank,) I will quote 
a part of a canon of the general council of Chalcedon, 
held in the year 451, and consisting of 630 bishops 
?r Whereas the fathers, with great propriety, bestowed 
the chief honors on the see of old Rome, because it teas 
ike imperial city ; and whereas the 150 Con-stantinopoli- 
tan fathers beloved of God, actuated by the same mo- 
tive, conferred the like dignity on the most holy see of 
New Rome, (Constantinople,) judging it reasonable that 
the city honored to be the seat of empire and of the 



112 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

senate, and equal in civil privileges with ancient royal 
Rome, should be equally distinguished also by eccle- 
siastical privileges, &c. &c." 

Subsection VIII. I conclude the examination of the 
Primaty of the Pope, by remarking that the primaty really 
began not when Christianity began, but 600 years after, 
having actually begun in century seventh, in A. D. 606, 
when the pope gained the proud title of Universal Bishop. 
The popan suprematy was coeval with the universal 
bishoprick, and came not from the Lord Jesus Christ, 
nor from the apostle Peter, but from the emperor 
Phocas ; and therefore it is a novelty. 



SECTION III. 



INFALLIBILITY. 



Subsection I. Where, in whom, in what man or men, 
does Infallibility reside 1 Who is infallible 1 Does In- 
fallibility reside in the Pope, in the episcopal head of 
Rome 1 No, no. 

Firstly. How will any one prove the pope to be in- 
fallible 1 By what mean will a popite show that the great 
prerogative belongs to the bishop of Rome 1 Will he 
say that we know it intuitively, that we derive the doc- 
trine from intuition 1 No. Will he say that we know 
it demonstratively, that we have the portion of creed 
from demonstration! No. Will he say that popan* infal- 
libility is probable % that it has the evidence of probabi- 
lity, if not so great as to be absolute certainty, yet so 

* Popan comes from pope, means belonging to the pope, and ap- 
pears a proper adjective. 



INFALLIBILITY. 113 

great as to be far above doubt ] He may indeed -say it, 
and say it again and again, but can he prove it 1 Can he 
make it clear and plain ! He cannot. Will he go for 
proof to Reason 1 Reason will laugh in his face, call 
him a fool, and order him to door, deriding, rebuking, 
and eliminating him for his irrationality. Will he go 
for proof to Revelation 1 Revelation will not befriend 
him in the point, will not give him the proof he requires. 
Scripture will be ransacked and examined in vain \ 
and will show passages either to convince him of his 
folly, or to reprove him for his sin in pretending that an 
antichristian priest of an antichristian kirk, is infallible ! 
The Bible will display the pope not as the great deposi- 
tary of Divine knowledge, not as infallible, inspired by 
the illuminating power of the Holy Ghost, not as God's 
great vicegerent holding the keys of earth, and hell, 
and heaven \ but as the earthly head of a monstrous and 
horrid combination, a combination hostile, cruel, and 
destructive to man, opposed to, and abhorred by God, 
and in virtual league with the power of hell. rt The 
horn made war with the saints. Dan. 7: 21. That man 
of sin, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth 
himself above all that is called God, or that is worship- 
ped. 2 Thess. 2. He whose coming is after the work- 
ing of Satan." 2 Thess. 2. 

Seco?idly. I will give eight arguments from reason, 
to prove the pope not infallible, but fallible. 

Argument first. The popes have been, in general, a 
bad set of men, very guilty and corrupt ; and some of 
them have been exceedingly bad, horribly w T icked and 
vile, uncommonly irreligious and immoral. The Roman 
Popes have been compared with the Roman Emperors. 
Properly speaking, the popes so compared ought to be 
the popes who lived after the pope became a temporal 
prince in the eighth century, and afore the Reformation 
in the sixteenth. Taking the popes who lived from the 



114 POPERi' IN SPECIAL. 

eighth to the sixteenth century, we find that both popes 
and emperors may be viewed as being, with few excep- 
tions, bad, immoral, depraved men ; but the popes are 
deemed the worse of the two. Now truly the bad cha- 
racter of the popes is an argument of some weight 
against the notion of their being endowed by God with 
infallibility. 

Argument second. The same pope has been known 
to oppose and contradict himself, maintaining an opin- 
ion at one time in opposition to what he maintained an- 
tecedently. Now when was he infallible, formerly or 
latterly 1 And as he was not so at both times, how will 
any one prove that he was so at either time 1 

Pope Liberius, in the fourth century, declared him- 
self by turn, a Trinitarian, an Arian, a Semiarian, and 
a Trinitarian again ! changing his creed several times, 
and holding by turn, three creeds ! What an admirable 
example of Infallibility ! 

Pope Zozimus, in the fifth century, first declared the 
Pelagian heresy to be innocent, and afterward declared 
it impious} formerly approving, and latterly condemning 
the same doctrine ! According to Zozimus, orthodoxy 
in one year became heterodoxy in about a year after. 
He openly and officially affirmed either that Pelagian- 
ism is not a bad, but an innocent thing, or that Pelagius 
and Celestius were not Pelagians, but held a pure creed ; 
and afterward recanted his affirmation, and affirmed the 
direct opposite. 

Pope Vigilius, in the sixth century, and on the ques- 
tion of The Three Chapters, changed side four times, al- 
tering his opinion or creed like a very fallible, saying 
and unsaying, affirming and denying by turn ! How 
infallible ! 

Pope Honorius, in the seventh century, changed his 
creed, going from orthodoxy to the Monothelite heresy. 

Pope John XXII, in the fourteenth century, publicly 



INFALLIBILITY. 115 

affirmed, in his sermons, that departed saints are not 
admitted to the beatific vision till after the resurrec- 
tion ; and afterward, publicly and solemnly retracted his 
affirmation or doctrine as an error, declaring that he 
had been in the wrong. This pope therefore allowed 
not only his fallibility, but his actual mistake ; admitted 
not only that he could err in doctrine, but even that he 
did err. 

•Argument third. Two, and even three popes have 
been found existing at one time, antipopes, condemn- 
ing, excommunicating, anathematizing each other. At 
the time of the Council of Constance, 1414, three men 
claimed the popedom ; and there were three, or two op- 
posing popes during about forty or fifty years. Now 
which of the rival co-existing popes was infallible % Will 
any papal wiseacre tell one that they all were infallible, 
though affirming contraries, things directly opposite 1 

Argument fourth. Successive popes differ widely one 
from another in opinion ; the pope who comes after, 
often opposing and contradicting the pope who went 
afore. Who is infallible, the former pope or the latter? 
It is clear that both cannot be so; and why is one so 
more than the other 1 Here we have pope against pope ; 
and one being fallible, the claim of the other to infalli- 
bility is an indigestible conceit, and a proud and vain 
pretension. 

Pope Gelasius was formally and officially against both 
Transubstantiation and Half Communion. He has been 
opposed by a crowd of popes; particularly by Innocent 
III and Pius IV on Transubstantiation, and by Martin 
V and Pious IV on Half Communion. Was Gelasius in- 
fallible 1 As he w r as not, so were not they. 

When John, the bishop of Constantinople, obtained 
the title of Universal Bishop, Gregory I, the bishop of 
Rome, very strongly and hotly condemned it, declaring 
and maintaining that w r hoever will take or accept that 



116 POPERY IN SFECIAL. 

heretical, blasphemous, and infernal title, Universal Bish- 
op ! is vain- glorious, proud, profane, impious, execrable, 
antic hristian, heretical, blasphemous, diabolical, the fol- 
lower of Lucifer, and the forerunner and herald of An- 
tichrist ! and that the title neither does nor can belong to 
any bishop whatever f* But when Boniface III obtained 
the very same title, Universal Bishop, from the eastern 
emperor Phocas, in A. D. 606, he was of a different 
opinion from his predecessor Gregory I. Boniface III 
and all succeeding popes, either condemn Gregory, 
or condemn themselves ; either declare that he was 
uncommonly erring and mistaking, or declare that 
they are uncommonly wicked and abominable, even in- 
fernal and diabolical. If they do not utterly condemn 
their own selves, and believe in their own antichristian, 
infernal, and diabolical character, they must deem Gre- 
gory to have greatly erred, and therefore to have been 
quite fallible. And Gregory being fallible, how can they 
prove that they are infallible 1 Not at all. Therefore 
all popes are fallible, or liable to err. N. B. Though 
Gregory was fallible, he was mainly right in his fore- 
going opinion ; though he could, he did not greatly err 
in describing the character of the universal bishop. 

Pope Honorius, after his death, was, by the sixth gene- 
ral or third Constantinoplan council held in A. D. 680, 
condemned as a heretic ! and an organ of the devil ! for 
having held the Monothelite heresy. The condemna- 
tory decision of the council had the consent and appro- 
bation of the reigning pope Agatho, and of Agatho's 
successor Leo II, Agatho and Leo contradicting and 
condemning Honorius. 

Pope John XXII directly contradicted his predeces- 
sor Nicholas IV, in relation to Franciscan friars having 



* I quote the words of Gregory, from Campbell's Lectures on 
Ecclesiastical Historv, Lecture XVI. 



INFALLIBILITY. 117 

property ; and termed the doctrine or opinion of Nico- 
las, heretical and blasphemous doctrine ! 

Pope Benedict XII contradicted and condemned the 
doctrine that his predecessor John XXII had held (and 
afterward recanted) concerning the beatific vision. 

Sixtus V declared ex cathedra, officially, infallibly, the 
Sixtine edition of the Vulgate to be authentic and true 5 
and afterward Clement VIII declared, ex cathedra, offici- 
ally, infallibly, the Clementine edition to be the only 
authentic and true one \ the two editions differing 
greatly one from the other, and being often opposite 
and contradictory ! Now how can the two contradic- 
tory editions be severally authentic, true, or correct 1 
And how can the two opposing popes be severally infal- 
lible % And if one be fallible, how is the other infallible 1 
See James' " Bellum Papale, Papal War" 

Argument fifth. No pope can perform a miracle, a 
genuine or true miracle, to prove that God has made 
him infallible. And when we contemplate the great im- 
port of the doctrine, and remember that Prophets and 
Apostles performed miracles to prove their infallibility, 
we cannot be deemed exorbitant or unreasonable in re- 
quiring the pope to favor us with a miracle, afore we 
believe in his infallibility. 

Argument sixth. The popes have not proved their 
possession of infallibility, to the conviction of the world 
at large ; for the world at large do not believe that 
popes are free from error, more than other men. More- 
over, the popes have not proved themselves to be infal- 
lible, to the conviction even of their own kirk, even of 
the papal world ; for real and true unity of opinion does 
not exist, and has not existed in the papal kirk. The 
want of unity of opinion among papal folk, is a conclu- 
sive proof that they themselves do not believe, do not 
credit, do not really and sincerely allow the pope's infal- 
libility. Now when both the papal kirk and the world 



118 POPES? IN SPECIAL. 

at laro-e shall have swallowed enormous the doctrine, we, 
my readers and myself, will view and examine the doc- 
trine again, to know if the size of it will allow it a pas- 
sage through our intellectual throat. 

Argument seventh. Popes have given decisions, and 
promulgated opinions, in philosophy and even in religion? 
that are opposite to Reason. Now we can less easily 
prove the infallibility of the pope, than the infallibility of 
Reason ; therefore we do wisely to hurl the former to the 
wind, and to cling to the latter with might and main. 
Surely we do well to maintain the suprematy of the rea- 
son of mankind in general, rather than to maintain that 
of the reason or whimsicality of an old priest in Rome. 

One pope or more affirmed, officially and infallibly, 
that the Pythagorean or Copernican system of astrono- 
my was wrong, and poor Galileo was immured in prison 
for declaring it true ; whereas all the world know that 
the system is right, and that the papal pretender to in- 
fallibility was altogether wrong. 

Pope Innocent III, under whom the fourth Lateran 
council was held, officially and infallibly affirmed the 
truth of Transubstantiation, a doctrinal monster well 
known to be wholly opposed to the plain and palpable 
dictate of reason. Moreover, other popes have officially 
affirmed the truth of the doctrine, Pius IV for example. 

Argument eighth. Popes have given decisions, and 
promulged opinions that are hostile and contrary to 
Scripture, thereby contradicting the word of God. Now 
as we know Scripture, God's own book, to be infallible, 
we are bound to set down the contradicting pope as 
fallible, erring, and vain, and every other pope as falli- 
ble, or liable to err. " All Scripture is given by inspi- 
ration of God. 2 Tim. 3 : 16. For the prophecy came not 
in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake 
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Pet. 1 : 21. 

Pope Liberius gave his open sanction to the Arian 



INFALLIBILITY. 119 

heresy, and formally declared himself an Arian. Pope 
Honorius was a Monothelite, and therefore deemed he- 
retical even by the kirk of Rome. Pope John XXII pub- 
licly and officially maintained an antiscriptural opinion 
relative to the beatific vision. Pope Paul V formally 
approved the doctrine of Suarez the Jesuit, in defence 
of the murder of kings ! 

Subsectio?i II. Does Infallibility reside in a General 
Council, the general council being viewed collectively, 
the members individually being fallible 1 No. To prove 
a general council not infallible, but fallible, I will give 
eight arguments. 

Argument first. Firstly. What is a General Council 1 
1st. How many men must come together to form one 1 
2nd. What clerical rank must they severally have 1 
3rd. From how many nations must they come 1 4th. 
By whose authority must they meet 1 5th. When and 
where must they meet 1 6th. How must they proceed 
when met 1 7th. Must they determine by unanimity ^ 
or may they determine by a given large majority, 
or by a mere majority of one 1 8th. What degree of 
probability must they require a proposition to have %. 
Probability can be great, can be middle, can be small ; 
can ascend to certainty, can descend to doubt. How 
probable must a proposition be 1 Now afore we can 
decide if a given council be what many papal folk are 
pleased to call a general one, we must answer the fore- 
going eight questions, and others that might be men- 
tioned. This would be found no trifling task, the an- 
swering of all the questions being a very puzzling and 
perplexing affair. A general council is a very vague and 
indefinite thing, for what is the criterion or standard of 
this generality 1 Of four people, two might consider a 
given council general, and two might deem it special, 
the generality and speciality being perhap equally pro- 
bable. This kind of generality is a thing whereabout A 



120 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

may believe, B may disbelieve, and C may doubt. Can 
papal writers lay down rules that will enable reasonable 
people clearly to know the exact essence or real nature 
of generality and speciality in relation to councils; to 
know always when a council is general, and when it is 
special 1 I trow not, I opine that they cannot. The gene- 
rality of a council depends on no immutable criterion, is 
determined by no indisputable or indubitable rule, but 
varies with the various opinion of various people, alter- 
ing the shape like a Proteus, and changing the color as a 
chameleon. Moreover, mankind are far from being 
agreed in relation to the number of general councils 
that have been held. Some will have six councils to be 
general, others will have seven, others eight / others 
eighteen, and others more. The main body of papal 
folk affirm eighteen to be general; — eight eastern called 
by the emperors, and ten western called by the popes. 
But if all these are to be deemed general, why are that 
of Constance and the like to be deemed special 1 

Secondly, Now is it probable that infallibility is 
joined to so indefinite and indeterminate a thing as 
a general council, a thing with difficulty recognized, a 
thing that can hardly be known ; is joined to some kind 
of council, we hardly know what 1 Would God put infal- 
libility in a place where we should have great toil and 
trouble in finding it, and where many would never find 
it at all, would never believe it to be 1 Would He annex 
it to mere indefinitude 1 If infallibility be given to the 
world, it is given for the world's good. What the bet- 
ter are we, however, by knowing that infallibility is 
somewhere ; but where, we do not know 1 That it be- 
longs to something, to a general council ; but to what 
thing, to what council, we cannot tell 1 We may as well 
doubt or disbelieve that infallibility pertains to a gene- 
ral council, as, believing it, doubt or disbelieve that a 
council is general. We are as far from infallibility in 



INFALLIBILITY. 121 

the latter way, as in the former. And God will not send 
infallibility in a form invisible to very many people ; 
he will not make her dwell with a personage whose 
dwelling can hardly be discovered, can scarcely be 
known by a large portion of mankind. God will not 
give infallibility to some councils, and omit to tell man 
what councils they are, telling him that they are gene- 
ral ones, and leaving him in doubt and darkness as to 
what councils ought to be deemed general. It follows 
that papites greatly err, and leave the probable far be- 
hind them, in making infallibility depend on general 
councils. 

Argument second. Let us now, for the sake of argu- 
ment, take for granted that the quality of councils as to 
generality and speciality, is easily knowable, or ascer- 
tainable without difficulty or doubt. The point of spe- 
ciality and the point of generality that are nearest to 
each other, are so near ; the highest limit of a special 
council verges so closely on the lowest limit of a gene- 
ral one ; the top of the former differs so little from the 
bottom of the latter ; the proximate extremes of the 
two are divided by so little an interval ; — that it is ex- 
traordinary and wonderful how high councils special 
are the subject of fallibility, and low councils general 
of infallibility! The speciality and generality nearly 
meet, the line separating the one from the other being 
barely perceptible ; whence then the mighty change, in 
passing the narrow boundary line, or in going from a 
special council to a general one, that we leave fallibility 
behind, and find infallibility before. 

Firstly. Natural, intrinsical, inherent infallibility. 

Case 1st. Assume that a general council must have 
300 members. Now in relation to mere number, with 
300, we find infallibility. But 299 are about as good as 
300, the difference between the two numbers being tri- 
fling and inconsiderable ) yet 299 are fallible. 299 are 

6 



122 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

fallible, errable, liable to mistake $ but add one, and you 
add infallibility I This is wonderful. 300 are very lit- 
tle above 299, while infallibility is a very long way from 
fallibility, no proportion being observed between the 
jump in number, and the jump in wisdom, jumping an 
inch in the former case, and a mile in the latter. 299 
being fallible, 300 may be deemed a very little less fal- 
lible, 300 being a very little more than 299 ; but to deem 
the 300 infallible, is uncommonly extravagant and ab- 
surdly disproportional. The leap from the fallibility of 
299, to the infallibility of 300, is an enormously long one, 
and will perhap land the leaper in Milton's Limbo of 
Vanity, the Paradise of Fools. See Paradise Lost, book 
third. 

Case 2nd. Assume that a general council must have 
bishops. Now in relation to mere clerical rank,, with 
bishops, we find infallibility. But 299 bishops and a dean 
are about as good as 300 bishops, the difference between 
a bishop and a dean being not over weighty and awful ; 
yet 299 bishops and a dean are fallible. Imagine 299 
papal bishops assembled seeking the blessing of infalli- 
bility. Alas \ they find it not ; yea, though they tumble 
their brain over and over, they find it not there ; though 
they shake their lawn sleeve, they shake it not out I 
though they dub themselves the only successors of the 
Apostles, they find themselves without infallible nod 
dies! What can be done 1 Throw in a dean. — Alas! 
A dean will not do. There is not enough specific gra- 
vity in the dean. The dean's belly, though large and 
round, and duly catholic or universal in regard to the 
variety of solids and fluids wherewith it is lined, is yet, 
as in duty bound, less ample in dimension and less fatly 
lined than the bishop's, having less absolution-money, 
indulgence-fees, purgatory-pay, and fewer devotee of- 
ferings, relic-proceeds, superstition-supplies, and other 
holy or unholy things ) therefore the belly of the dean 



INFALLIBILITY. 123 

is not heavy enough to turn the scale to the side of 
infallibility. But now clap an additional bishop in the 
assembly, and behold the happy result. The 299 falli- 
bles being reinforced by a brother bishop, and they 
being now 300 strong of episcopal worth, are more than 
a match for error ; far away fly all mistake, and all 
wrong opinion ,• off scamper all heresy, folly, and doc- 
trine unsound ; and up jumps, to the admiring gaze of 
papal gulls, the goddess Infallibility, having sprung from 
the 300 prelatical brains, like Minerva from the head of 
Jove, or like Sin from that of Satan. Par. Lost, B. II. 
What wonders are in papal skulls episcopal ! Now we 
see that one dean may spoil infallibility. That the dean 
will spoil many a thing, I knew \ but I hardly deemed 
infallibility to be one of them. A papal dean treads 
nearly on the heel of a papal bishop, in many a point ; 
in opposing a Constitution, in reviling political reforma- 
tion, in aiding Miguel, Carlos, and other tyrants, in up- 
holding illiberals and Inquisitionals, in loving slavery 
on the Continent, in hating liberty in Great Britain, in 
cursing the schismatical Greek, in roasting the hereti- 
cal Protestant, in eating up papal tithe, in longing to 
eat up Protestant too, swallowing fine loaves and fishes, 
standing up for sinecures, and the like. In these points, 
the dean has great merit, and is very effective ; indeed 
herein, he may often pass muster for the bishop. But 
the dean has no hand at infallibility. His sleeves are 
not lawned like the bishop's, and his cranium is not 
equally endowed with infallible matter. The dean is 
good at an anti-liberal or anti-toleration exploit ,* but 
try him on infallibility, and he goes to the wall. As 
Ithuriel's spear tested the property of the toad at the 
ear of Eve, so infallibility will put to proof the value 
of the dean. None but episcopal wisdom will be able 
to guard man from error ! Why the dean is so infe- 
rior to the bishop, I am unable to explain. Both will 



124 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

boast of Apostolical descent, and will claim the power 
of the Keys ; but maybe the Apostolic character flows 
less freely and easily under the sleeve of the dean, and 
absolution from sin is performed by him with somewhat 
more trouble. Both are single, are without an equal in 
the clerical dignity of the cathedral ; but the dean is 
not enthroned. I have heard of the enthronization of 
the bishop, but do not imagine that of the dean. Who 
knows what the latter loses, in point of infallibility, 
through not being enthroned 1 Could we enthrone a 
very reverend, I would back him, for infallibility, against 
the right reverend of Leon, or the mosi reverend of Co- 
logne.* One thing more. Our dean may be wise and 
worthy, and our additional bishop, the three hundredth, 
may be foolish and unworthy. Now is not a wise and 
worthy dean equal, in playing the game of infallibility, 
to an unwise and unworthy bishop X 299 bishops and a 
wise and worthy dean are fallible, but the same 299 
bishops and an additional ignorant and worthless bishop 
are infallible I Oh foolery, nonsense, absurdity I Oh 
foolish Romanites, who hath bewitched you, that ye 
should not obey the truth % GaL 3. Moreover, 1 desire 
papal oracles to inform one why 400, or 500, or 600 
deans are not infallible equally with 300 bishops. Truly 
one bishop is not better, in finding truth, than two deans, 
is not better, and not so good ; therefore if 300 bishops 
be infallible, we are bound to believe in the infallibility 
of 600 deans. I should have less difficulty in believing 
infallibility in two battalions of papal deans, than in one 
battalion of papal bishops. Now a council having not 
300 bishops, but 600 deans, and being therefore special, 

* The bishop of Leon was an agent in England, for the Cruel 
and Inquisitional Don. Carlos, a very unenviable agency ; and the 
arch-bishop of Cologne has acquired, through his opposition to the 
Prussian government, a political notoriety of a somewhat unen- 
viable kind. 



INFALLIBILITY. 125 

has, according to reason and logic, not at all less claim 
to be thought infallible, than a council general ; and the 
special one being fallible, the general one is fallible too. 

Case 3c/. Assume that a general council must have 
either unanimity or a majority of at least 200. Now in 
relation to mere majority, with 200, we find infallibility. 
But a majority of 199 is about as good as one of 200, 
the difference between the two being unworthy of re- 
gard 5 yet the smaller majority is fallible. According to 
the assumption here made, (and we must assume some- 
thing,) 199 are fallible, but 200 are infallible. Is this 
reasonable 1 is it agreeable to common sense 1 is it ac- 
cording to the intellectual procedure of rational people 
when proceeding rationally 1 It is not. No one indued 
with ordinary wit and honesty, will affirm that the addi- 
tion of on^e to 199, turns fallibility to infallibility ; that 
199 boing fallible, 200 are incapable of erring, and above 
mistake. The majority of 200 may be, in a very small 
degree, less liable to err than that of 199 ; but that it 
differs from it not only in degree, but even in kind, be- 
ing not only less fallible, but even infallible, is neither 
more nor less than a piece of foolery. What ! Is 
any man silly enough to believe that the difference be- 
tween fallible and infallible, a difference in kind and a 
very great one, is no greater than that between 199 
and 200, a mere difference in degree, and an extremely 
small one too 1 Whoever believes it, is really a kind 
of simpleton. 

Case ith. Assume that a general council must have 
probability to number seven. Now in relation to mere 
probability, with number 7, we find infallibility. But 
probability to number 6, or 6^, or 6f, is not far below 
that to number 7, the difference being slender ; yet the 
lower probability allows men to be fallible. If the pro- 
position be probable to 6f , the men are fallible ; but if 
it be probable to 7, they are infallible. Strange and mi- 



126 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

raculous ! Oh papal swallow, how great is your diame- 
ter, to take in the like enorm monstrosity ! Moreover, 
let papal wiseacres inform the world why a majority of 
250 having probability less than 7, say 6J, are not infal- 
lible equally with a majority of 200 having probability 7. 
If the increase in majority be not inferior to the de- 
crease in probability, infallibility is not put in danger by 
the decrease. 250 minds with very little smaller pro- 
bability, are quite as likely to find truth, to be infallible, 
as 200 minds with the greater probability of 7. Now a 
council having not a majority of 200 and probability 
seven, but a majority of 250 and probability less than 
seven, and being therefore special, has, according to 
reason and logic, not at all less claim to be thought in- 
fallible, than a council general ; and the special one 
being fallible the general one is fallible too. 

Case 3d. in relation to case 4th. The minority o£ 
100 may have probability, subjective probability, pro- 
bable conviction, evidence, appearance, to number 14, 
while the majority of 200 have it to number 7. Now 
why are the minority less likely to be infallible than 
the majority 1 If the minority be half in point of num- 
ber, they are double in point of probability ; why then 
are they inferior to the majority 1 Why are not both 
fallible, or both infallible 1 Moreover, a majority of 199 
may have probability greater than to number 7, having 
it to number 8, or even to number 14. Now certainly 
if a majority of 200 having probability to 7, be infallible, 
a majority of 199 having probability to 8 or even 14, 
ought to be, if reason and logic are to guide, I do not 
say more than infallible, infallible and quarter, infallible 
and half, infallible and two-thirds, or the like; but I do 
say infallible ought to be infallible. Now a council hav- 
ing neither unanimity nor a majority of at least 200, and 
being therefore special, has, according to reason and lo- 
gic, not at all less claim to be thought infallible than a 



INFALLIBILITY. 127 

council general ; and the special one being fallible, the 
general one is fallible too. 

Secondly, Supernatural and extrinsecal infallibility. 
1st. Can papal folk prove that God, not giving infalli- 
bility to a council having little fewer than 300 members, 
gives it to one having 300 ! They cannot. 2nd. Can 
they prove that God, not giving infallibility to a council 
not altogether episcopal, gives it to one composed en- 
tirely of bishops 1 They cannot. 3rd. Can they prove 
that God, not giving infallibility to a council not having 
either unanimity or a majority of at least 200, gives it 
to one having one of the two % They cannot. 4th. Can 
they prove that God, not giving infallibility to a council 
not having probability coming up to number 7, gives it 
to one having the 7 probability 1 They cannot. Papal 
advocates cannot prove any one point of the four, nor 
any point like them, unless they prove by the argument 
of persecution, of brute force, of the sword, the fagot, 
or the infernal inquisition. As God witholds infallibili- 
ty from the former kind of council, he does not give it 
to the latter. He disregards and contemns the papal 
minute distinction between a special council and a gene- 
ral one. Two councils differing in their nature to the 
breadth of half a hair, are not made so different super- 
naturally as to be, the one fallible, and the other infalli- 
ble. Divine wisdom does not conform to our petty plan- 
ning. N. B. Throughout the present argument, the 
general council is viewed collectively, the members 
singly being fallible. 

Argument third. How can a general council, whereof 
eve^ member is fallible, be infallible % How can any 
given number of fallible singles, form an infallible com- 
pound 1 How can infallibility be found in the whole, 
while it is not found in the parts 1 Can that exist in uni- 
versal, that exists not in particulars ! Would a collection 
of fools constitute a wise man] Would a company of 



128 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

beggars, each having an empty pocket, form a fund of 
wealth] Would five hundred goats driven together in 
a fold, become a flock of sheep ! Twenty men, each ha- 
ving a portion of wisdom, may form here of a larger por- 
tion 3 one hundred people having severally some money, 
may make together a considerable sum : for one portion 
of wisdom differs from another portion, and one sum 
of money differs from another sum, only in degree, 
wisdom and money existing in quantities smaller or 
greater. But infallibility differs from fallibility not 
only in degree, but even in kind ; they being not 
different measures of one homogeneal thing, but dif- 
ferent natures or things ; not variations in quantity, 
but separate qualities. It follows that several fallibili- 
ties, none whereof is a small infallibility, cannot com- 
pose an infallibility either great or small ; many people, 
every one of whom is fallible, none of whom is infallible, 
more or less, cannot become one great infallible j ten 
men, or tenfold ten men cannot be one infallible mon- 
ster. Whatever is in the genus, must be in the species 5 
and infallibility being not in the species, not in the mem- 
bers, it is not in the genus, not in the general council. 
Infallibility not being in ten members, nor in two, nor in 
one, cannot be in the council ; not existing in the men 
taken singly or individually, cannot exist in them taken 
collectively or aggregately. The prophets were in- 
spired, and so infallible singly ; therefore they were so 
collectively. The Apostles were inspired, and so infal- 
lible as individuals; therefore they were so as a body. 
And when the members of a general council shall be 
severally infallible, then we will allow infallibility in the 
council, — and not afore. 

Some may object that though this reasoning is true 
in relation to infallibility natural, intrinsecal, inherent, 
it is erroneous in relation to infallibility supernatural 
and extrinsecal. But the objection, even if plausible, is 



INFALLIBILITY, 129 

futile and empty. The reasoning is not more applicable 
to the former kind of infallibility, than to the latter, ap- 
plying fairly and fully to both kinds. As God gives not 
infallibility to the men whereof the council is composed, 
he gives it not to the council. Not giving it to the 
singles, he does not give it to the compound; not con- 
ferring it on the parts, he does not confer it on the 
whole. The species being fallible, how can the genus 
be infallible either naturally or supernaturally 1 The 
men not being infallible singly, none of them being infal- 
lible, how can they be so collectively 1 It would puzzle 
a wiser man than Locke or Newton to declare how. 

Argument fourth. Councils having as good right as any 
to be considered general, have opposed and contradicted 
one another, the latter unsaying what the former said, the 
following denying what the foregoing affirmed. I quote 
the following period from Fletcher's Lectures on the Ro- 
man Catholic Religion, Appendix, Note H. " General 
councils have enacted and decreed in direct opposition 
to the enactments and decrees of prior general councils.'*' 

Argument fifth. No council, special or general, can 
perform a miracle, a real or true miracle, to prove that 
God has made it infallible. And when we contemplate 
the magnitude of the thing claimed by or for the coun- 
cil, namely, exemption from error, we surely are not un- 
reasonable in requiring the claim to be substantiated by 
miraculous proof. 

Argument sixth. The councils special or general, call 
them whether you like, have not proved their possession 
o( infallibility, to the conviction of the world at large ; 
for the world at large do not believe that councils are 
free from error, are superior to mistake. Moreover, the 
councils have not proved themselves to be infallible, to 
the conviction even of the papal world ] for real and true 
unity of opinion does not exist, and has not existed in 
the papal kirk. The notorious plurality of opinion among 

6* 



130 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

papal folk, is a conclusive proof that they themselves do 
not really and sincerely allow the council's infallibility. 

Argument seventh. Councils as general as any, have 
given decisions and sanctioned things that are opposite 
to Reason. Now when a council and reason collide, we 
do well to side with the latter. 

The fourth council Lateran positively decided for the 
truth of the irrational and absurd doctrine of Transub- 
stantiation. Moreover, the council of Trent very deci- 
dedly maintained the same monster doctrine, and with 
perhap additional absurdity. 

Argument eighth. Councils as general as any, have 
given decisions and sanctioned things that are hostile 
and contrary to Scripture. Now as we know what Holy 
Scripture is, and from whom it came, we view councils 
that wander therefrom, as wandering from truth, and as 
being a wrong and misleading guide. 

The second Nicene council sanctioned and confirmed 
the worship of images, a very antiscriptural thing. 

The third and fourth Lateran councils warranted or 
sanctioned the deposing and dispensing power, the 
power claimed by the pope of deposing kings ! and of 
dispensing with the allegiance of their people ! 

The councils of Constance and Trent, though fully 
and formally allowing that eucharistal communication 
in both kinds, in bread and wine, was the institution of 
Christ, and was long the practice of the christian world, 
yet antiscripturally presume to decide for communica- 
tion in one kind only, in bread, daringly denying the 
wine to the laity. The council of Constance had even 
the daring presumption to call the laical use of the cup 
an error] to call the acknowledged institution of our 
Lord, in relation to present time, if not to past, an error ! 
It follows that the two councils are self-condemned ; that 
they determined in opposition to Holy Scripture, by 
their own confession. 



INFALLIBILITY. . 131 

Subsection HI. Article 1. From the foregoing two 
parts of the present section, we clearly see that infalli- 
bility resides neither in the pope, nor in the general 
council taken collectively, the members individually 
being fallible. We proceed to ask our opponent where 
it does, where it can reside ; or what men are or can be 
infallible ; the infallibility being either natural and intrin- 
secal, or supernatural and extrinsecaL 

Article 2. Does Infallibility reside in one or few 
members of the general council, and in no more % No. 
If one or few be infallible, he or they are either known 
or unknown. Firstly. If he or they be known, he or they 
can be pointed out, can be mentioned by name, can be 
distinguished particularly from the less favored brethren. 
And as no papite does or can point out the infallible or 
infallibles, we clearly infer that no infallible one or few 
are known ; as no papite can name the gifted man or 
men, we are very sure that no infallible man or men 
can be specially or individually found. Secondly. As- 
sume the infallible one or few to be unknown. The gene- 
ral council will decide either by majority or by unani- 
mity. First by majority. 1st. The council will perhap 
decide in opposition to the judgment of the one or few, 
not knowing him or them. Being ignorant who is or 
are the infallible one or few, the council may decide 
wrongly, or against the infallible opinion. Not knowing 
in whom infallibility resides, they know not whom to 
follow; and therefore may follow the fallible, instead 
of the infallible. Ignoring the oracular man or men, the 
council, in effect, have no oracle to follow, deriving 
little good from infallibility unknown ; therefore they 
will possibly go wrong, throwing away truth, and adopt- 
ing error. Being in the dark, the members of the coun- 
cil may mistake their way, as chance may lead, or as it 
may happen. Their decision is mere chance-work. 2nd. 
Even if the council decide aright, they do not know it $ 



132 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

even if they finally concur with the infallible dictate 
or opinion, they are ignorant of their good luck, ignor- 
ing what opinion is infallible. They happen to be in 
the right ; but for aught they know, they are in the 
wrong. If they have determined on the side of infalli- 
bility, they have made a lucky hit ; but the lucky hit is 
one whereof they have no knowledge, and wherefrom 
they derive no consolation. So far 1st. and 2nd. Now 
assuming general councils to decide by majority, is it a 
likely thing to have infallibility in the unknown way ? 
No. Is it probable that infallible wisdom is lodged in 
one or few unknown 1 Far otherwise. Can we reason- 
ably deem one or few members of a general council to 
be infallible in such a manner, that the council may in- 
nocently decide against his or their judgment, or may 
decide conformably hereto, without knowing the con- 
formity 1 We cannot. Second. By unanimity. If gene- 
ral councils decide by unanimity, the foregoing invin- 
cible objections to an infallible one or few unknown^ 
namely, the objections arising from deciding by majo- 
rity, would not apply or hold good. But unanimity 
in general or great councils, would be nearly a miracle. 
The like unanimity hardly ever has been known, and 
hardly ever will be. In a great council having hun- 
dreds of members, we shall possibly find tens of opin- 
ions ; the opinions being to the members, as ten to a 
hundred, or as one to ten. What general council can 
be named, whereof all the members held exactly one and 
the same opinion or view, not differing in a jot, tittle, 
or iota ! Real and sincere unity of opinion in general or 
great councils, is opposite to both theory and experi- 
ence, and is a mere idle dream or vain imagination. 
Many men, many minds. 

I have tried to prove that no infallible one or few can 
anyhow be found, or do really exist among the members 
of a general council. And I hope I shall be deemed to 






INFALLIBILITY. 133 

have proved the point effectively. But even assuming 
that I have not fully proved my point, can any papite 
prove his point, namely, that an infallible one or few can 
somehow be found among them 1 No. A papite can- 
not prove the point. We may defy all the papites un- 
der the broad heaven, to prove the existence of one in- 
fallible or few infallibles in a general council. Papal wri- 
ters may twist and turn, writhe and wriggle, and write 
till their paper be filled, their hand tired, their brain 
muddled, and their patience gone ; yet they will not 
prove the infallibility of one or few. They cannot prove 
it, even if we cannot disprove 5 and I deem the forego- 
ing remarks to be a tolerable disproof. Let the wise 
and worthy determine. 

Many of the eight arguments in opposition to the in- 
fallibility of the general council, that were employed in 
Subsection II or last, might be given here, being appli- 
cable here as well as there. I do not however bring the 
arguments before the reader again, deeming it inutile to 
go over the same ground a second time. Therefore I 
merely refer the reader to them, in order that he may, 
if he like, turn back, and let them again go under his 
eye, and through his mind. 

Article 3. Does Infallibility reside in every single 
member of the general council, or in all the members \ 
No. The notion is too extravagant, preposterous, and 
absurd to require a formal refutation. Of all the wild 
whims that can enter the head of man, hardly one is 
wilder than the present. 

Article 4. Does Infallibility reside in the pope and 
general council taken together"? No. How can it re- 
side here 1 As it is not in the pope, and not in the 
general council, the council being taken in any way, it 
cannot be in the pope and council combined. Not being 
either in the pope or in the general council taken se- 
parately or alone, it cannot be in them taken jointly or 



134« POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

together ; not being in the singles, it cannot be in the 
double or compound. Can two ciphers make an inte- 
ger 1 can two curve lines be a straight one 1 can two 
nothings make a something 1 can two fallibles form an 
infallible 1 By no rule of logic. Let the reader remem- 
ber that infallibility differs from fallibility, not in mere 
quantity or degree, but in quality or kind. In fine, the 
pope being fallible, and the general council being falli- 
ble, if infallibility be found in their union, it must be 
like a rivulet or stream without a fountain or spring, or 
like a second without a first, or a superstructure with- 
out a foundation, or a superfices without a line, or an 
effect without a cause. " Who can bring a clean thing 
out of an unclean 1 Not one." Job, 14 : 4. See Sub- 
section II or last, argument third. 

It may possibly be objected that, as a corporation, the 
mayor and town council together, may be competent to 
do what neither alone can properly perform, so the pope 
and general council together may be infallible, though 
apart they are fallible. Reply. The mayor and town 
council separately have a quantity of power, though not 
a quantity large enough for the object in view 5 but the 
two quantities taken together, form one large enough 
for the purpose. This civil power, however, is a thing 
differing in mere quantity or degree, being less or more ; 
and though the separate amount of the mayor or of the 
town council is too small, the joint amount of the cor- 
poration is large enough. But fallibility and infallibility 
differ not in mere quantity or degree, but in quality or 
kind; and as the junction or juxtaposition of two falli- 
bilities will not form an infallibility, will not alter their 
quality or kind, so the fallible pope and fallible general 
council together will not form one infallible combination 
or body. Two threes will make a six, but will not 
make a straight line. 

Article 5. Does infallibility reside in any other set of 



INFALLIBILITY. 135 

papal clergymen ! No. The notion is about as ample 
and abundant in folly as any of the former, being one of 
the most wild, ridiculous, or monstrous notions that can 
well be imagined. 

Article 6. Thus infallibility resides nowhere — on 
earth. 1st. It is not in the pope. 2nd. It is not in the 
general council taken collectively, the members indivi- 
dually being fallible. 3rd. It is not in an exclusive one 
or few members of the general council. 4th. It is not 
in every single member hereof. 5th. It is not in the 
pope and general council taken together. 6th. It is 
not in any other set of papal clergymen. It follows 
that papal pretension to infallibility is hollow, empty, 
and vain. 

Subsection IV. Firstly. How far does infallibility ex- 
tend 1 on what is it employed 1 wKat is the range or 
scope of its application! Does it include doctrine only, 
or practice too ! Does it apply to both discipline and 
government 1 Does it encircle revealed religion only, 
or natural as welll Does it refer to opinion exclu- 
sively, or even relate to fact! 

Secondly. If infallibility take in all, it has a very wide 
field of operation, and quite enough to do. Doctrine, 
practice, discipline, government, revealed religion, na- 
tural religion, opinion, fact, &c. &c. &c. &c. Poor infal- 
libility ! she has no sinecure. If she be compelled to 
settle and determine all of them, she will soon die 
through exhaustion and fatigue, overworking, and fall- 
ing into premature old age. 

Thirdly. If infallibility take in not all of them, but 
some, I beg to put two questions. 1st. What things are 
taken in 1 Several things are mentioned here ; how 
many of them are within the domain of infallibility ! 
Please to answer the question. 2nd. Who can draw the 
line of demarcation between all of them, pointing out the 
definite and exact boundary of every one, telling clearly 



136 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

where one ends, and where another begins 1 Who can 
show the determinate line between doctrine and practice 1 
Who can declare the definite limit of discipline and go- 
vernment 1 Who can tell, accurately and precisely, where 
is the bottom of revealed religion, and where the top of 
natural 1 Who can decide, within the breadth of half a 
hair, between the contending claims of opinion and fact 1 

Fourthly. Even if we could determine that all are 
within the sacred enclosure of infallibility, or that this, 
that, and t'other are so, neither more nor less, we know- 
ing correctly their several boundaries, w T e should have 
to inquire farther about the measure or quantity of each 
thing. Assume doctrine to be within. Do our papal 
friends mean all doctrines, or only some 1 Assume 
practice to be within. Do they mean every part of prac- 
tice, or only few parts 1 Assume opinion and fact to 
be within. How many opinions ! how many facts ] 

Subsection V. If we were to allow infallibility in the 
kirk papal, we should be logically bound to allow it in 
the kirk patriarchal, and in kirks protestant ; for the 
papal kirk can show no better title, can prove no better 
right to the high privilege, than the other kirks. They 
are all on a par relative to the point, all being fallible, 
or all being infallible. What rational proof, I desire to 
know, can a papite give for papal infallibility, that is not 
equally proof for the infallibility of patriarchite and pro- 
testant ] If infallibility has been in Rome, it has been 
equally in Constantinople, in London, and elsewhere. 
If the papal kirk be of great antiquity, so is the patri- 
archal one ; these two, under the names of western 
and eastern, long existing in rivalry, either as open foes 
or as jealous friends. If one be infallible, so are both $ 
and we have the very curious spectacle presented for 
our edification, of two infallible kirks differing directly, 
point blank, front to front, on several points of import, 
particularly on the Procession of the Holy Ghost. 



INFALLIBILITY. 137 

Subsection VI. Infallibility is not according to ana- 
logy, to philosophical analogy. We have no infallibility 
in other matters, in what may be called natural know- 
ledge. There is no infallible authority in metaphysic, 
none in mechanic, none in astronomy, none in chymistry, 
none in aerology, none in geology, none in geography, 
none in zoology, none in botany, none in medicine, none 
in surgery, none in jurisprudence, none in political eco- 
nomy, none in history, none in chronology, none in 
grammar, none in lingual learning, none in optical and 
acoustical science, and none in any other like depart- 
ment of knowledge. Now the God of creation and 
providence is the God of redemption ; He who ordered 
the system of nature, framed the scheme of Christianity 5 
He who speaks by the still small voice of reason, de- 
clares his almighty will in the volume of revelation. 
He who created and rules the world, with the worlds 
above, below, and around, sent the Bible into the world. 

The voice that rolls the stars along, 
Spoke all the promises. 

Watts, B. 2. H. 69. 

Moreover, God is consistent with himself; what he does 
in one part of his wide domain, he leaves not undone, 
other things being equal, in another part ; his plan of 
operation in the kingdom of nature corresponds with 
his doing in the kingdom of grace. And having given 
no infallible human interpreter in creation and provi- 
dence, for nature, for the various field of philosophy, he 
Las given none in redemption, for the Bible, for the 
whole or for part of Christianity. 

Subsection VII. Infallibility is not according to Holy 
Scripture, to the Bible. Firstly. From the first word in 
Genesis, to the last in Kevelation, no proof can be drawn 
for the monster doctrine of infallibility. Examine the 
Bible through and through, turn it in every mode, weigh 
the several passages in the most accurate scales of 



138 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

critical and logical exactitude, and you will find that it 
does not maintain this great pillar doctrine of popery. 
Twist and torture the Bible, pinch and squeeze it, use 
critical, grammatical, lingual violence and force, and 
you will have hard work, great labor, and Herculean 
toil to make God's word declare and pronounce for this 
Cyclopean invention of man. 

Secondly, The Bible is even against infallibility ; not 
only not for, but even against. Many passages of Holy 
Writ, particularly of the New Testament, run strongly 
counter to the wild reverie. The passages are of two 
kinds. Kind first. They that are unfavorable directly 
or immediately. " Because of unbelief, they w r ere broken 
off; and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, 
but fear : for if God spared not the natural branches, 
take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold there- 
fore the goodness and severity of God : on them which 
fell, severity ; but toward thee, goodness, if thou con- 
tinue in his goodness ; otherwise, thou also shalt be cut 
off." Rom. 11:20-22. N. B. We have to remember 
that the foregoing passage was written to the Romans, 
or the Roman kirk. " Be not ye called Rabbi ; for one 
is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. 
And call no man your father upon earth ; for one is 
your Father, who is in heaven. Neither be ye called 
masters ; for one is your Master, even Christ. Matt. 23 : 
8, 9, 10. Not for that we have dominion over your faith, 
but are helpers of your joy; for by faith ye stand* 
2 Cor. 1 : 24-. Not as being lords over God's heritage 
or clergy, but being ensamples to the flock. 1 Pet. 5 : 3. 
Beloved, believe not every spirit ; but try the spirits, 
whether they are of God ; because many false prophets 
are gone out into the world. 1 John, 5:1. To the law 
and to the testimony ; if they speak not according to 
this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isa e 
8:20. The Bereans were more noble than those in 



INFALLIBILITY. 1 39 

Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all 
readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, 
whether those things were so. Acts, 17: 11. Prove all 
things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thess. 5:21. 
From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, 
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through 
faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by 
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for 
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; 
that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly fur- 
nished unto all good works. 2 Tim. 3: 15, 16, 17. Search 
the Scriptures. John, 5 : 39. If any of you lack wisdom, 
ask of God." James, 1 : 5. Kind second. Passages that 
are unfavorable indirectly or mediately, leaning against 
infallibility, by condemning popery. For as the Bible 
often pointedly and strongly condemns popery, we may 
fairly infer that it rnndemns, by implication, this great 
leading doctrine thereof. See chapter first, section 
ninth or last. 

Subsection VIII. I have supposed, while making the 
foregoing remarks on infallibility, that the word is 
meant to be taken correctly, literally, with logical ex- 
actitude, or in the sense of inerrability. In this, the 
literal meaning of the term, the assumption of infalli- 
bility, either is a piece of impudent imposture and 
abominable fraud, or is mere adoption of error, a gulp- 
ing of farcical and laughable conceit. 

Subsection IX. If by Infallibility be meant merely 
this, that when all agree in opinion, they have probably 
the right one ; that many are more likely to find truth, 
than few or one ; that common consent carries high pro- 
bability ; that in the multitude of counsellors, are safety 
and wisdom ; (Prov. 11 : 14 ;) if this be all that is meant, 
the meaning may be well enough, but the language is 
incorrect and improper. The word infallibility is then 
a wrong word to be employed. Such infallibility is a 



140 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

species of fallibility ; and people so infallible, are more 
or less fallible. This infallibility is not real but nomi- 
nal ; being not the thing-, but the name. Why use a 
term tending to mislead, if not to deceive 1 If fair play 
be in the thought, why have foul play in the word 1 

According to Vincentius Lyrin, that is to be held, that 
hath been believed semper, ubique, et ab omnibus, always, 
everywhere, and by all. I add two remarks. 1st. A 
doctrine so believed, implies a very great likelihood of 
being true, or a very small amount of fallibility, but not 
infallibility ; is very highly probable, but not infallibly 
certain. 2nd. Lyrin's universal belief relates to the 
whole of the christian world, and not exclusively to a 
part ; refers to the kirk universal, and not particularly 
to the kirk of Rome. It is therefore beyond the range 
of the present inquiry, one confined to the claiming of 
infallibility by tho kirk papal, by one kirk of many. 

Subsection X. The infallibility pretenders may be 
divided into three kinds. First. They who employ an 
erroneous and misleading term, and do not maintain the 
thing. Second. They who are chargeable with folly, 
who are led in ignorance, who maintain the thing 
through want of knowing better. Third. They who 
are guilty of fraud, who beguile the simple by uttering 
a lie, who maintain the thing while really disbelieving 
it. The main body of that portion of the papal world 
who maintain infallibility, belong, we presume, to divi- 
sions first and second. N. B. I do not mean that all of 
division or kind second, are either natural fools, or a set 
of knownoihings* Some of them may have great talent 
and great knowledge ; but on the point of infallibility, 
they appear weak or ignorant to a degree quite pitiable. 

Subsection XL Taking the word infallibility in the 
meaning given in subsection IX, namely, "that when 

* Kriowiiothing appears a desirable word to signify one very 
ignorant. 



INFALLIBILITY. 141 

all agree in opinion, they have probably the right one/' 
other kirks or communions are infallible like the papal 
one, such infallibility belonging, more or less, to every 
christian community. In that incorrect and improper 
signification of the term, infallibility may be affirmed of 
the kirk patriarchal, of the kirk of England and Ireland, 
of the kirk of Scotland, of the kirks Independent, Wes- 
leyan, Baptist, Quaker, and other. 

Subsection XII. Firstly. In Subsection I, argument 
sixth, we have seen that papal folk themselves do not 
really allow the pope's infallibility ; and, in Subsection 
II, argument sixth, we have seen that they do not really 
allow the infallibility of the general council. The want 
of unity of opinion in the papal kirk amply proves that 
both pope and general council are really deemed fallible 
by the papal thinker. 

Secondly. I proceed now to remark, that the same 
want of unity, the same plurality of opinion, amply 
proves that very many papites do not really allow proper 
or literal infallibility in any person or persons of their 
kirk; do not really allow it anywhere; do not really 
allow it at all. If the majority of wise and well-in- 
formed papites did really and sincerely think any party 
among them to be really and properly infallible, they 
would have no variety of opinion, no diversity of creed, 
no doctrinal debate ; therefore the palpable fact that they 
have such variety, diversity, debate, is a convincing 
proof that they do not really and sincerely think any 
party in their kirk to be endowed with real and proper 
infallibility. 

Thirdly. I am of opinion that some members of the 
papal kirk allow no kind of infallibility, neither real and 
proper, nor unreal and improper, rejecting it altogether, 
disclaiming at once both the thing and the name. I 
opine that some enlightened papal thinkers not only 
view the doctrine of real infallibility with contempt, and 



142 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

rightly judge that no human being or beings upon earth 
form an infallible authority, that no man or men on the 
globe compose a tribunal from whose inerrable decision 
we may not appeal ; but even go so far as to avoid and 
condemn the use of the word infallibility as leading to 
error and as partaking of guile. 

Fourthly. In concluding this long section, I take leave 
to counsel my readers, if they want infallibility, to go 
to the Bible and to God. " Search the Scriptures." John, 
5 : 39. " If any of you lack wisdom, ask of God." James, 
1 : 5. In the word and wisdom of God we have firmi- 
tude, plenitude, and perfection. 



SECTION IV. 

VULGATE, APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. 

Subsection I. The council of Trent had the peculiar 
presumption, the extreme hardihood, the profane auda- 
city, and even the blasphemy to pronounce the Vulgate, 
the Apocrypha, and the Traditions to have Divine autho- 
rity ; affirming the Latin version, called the Vulgate, to 
be equal to the Hebrew and Greek originals, and the 
Apocrypha and Tradition to be co-equals of the Bible. 

Subsection II. Vulgate. I deem it right to tell the 
reader here, that I wrote the paragraph foregoing, and 
the six points following, between two and three years 
ago, when, in common with some people, protestant and 
papal, I entertained the opinion that the council of 
Trent attributed to the Vulgate a kind of Divine autho- 
rity, attributing it really and in idea, though not nomi- 
nally and in word, intending and expecting their lan- 
guage characterizing the Vulgate, to be taken by the 
people in the sense of Divine authority, and that I wrote 



VULGATE, APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. . 143 

the paragraph and six points accordingly. Further con- 
sideration, however, leads me to think it not quite fair 
to take for granted that the council attributed Divine 
authority to the Vulgate, or meant and desired the peo- 
ple to deem that version divinely authorized. The coun- 
cil literally attributed to the Vulgate authenticity, term- 
ing the version authentic. Now authenticity is not quite 
equivalent to Divine authority, and authentic is not ex- 
actly equal to divinely authorized. Authenticity may 
mean Divine authority, and may mean other things ; and 
authentic may signify divinely authorized, and may have 
other significations. What the council meant and intend- 
ed the world to mean by authentic and authenticity, I do 
not pretend to know fully and exactly. Perhaps they did 
mean, and did intend the world to mean, divinely autho- 
rized and Divine authority ; but even if they did not, pos- 
sibly many and probably or certainly some have thought, 
do think, and will think that they did ; and therefore have 
thought, and do and will think, the Vulgate to be di- 
vinely authorized, or to have Divine authority, confiding 
in the supposed judgment of the council. Consequently 
I retain the foregoing paragraph and following six points 
exactly as originally written, warning the reader that I 
write there hypothetically or conditionally, on condition 
that the meaning be divinely authorized, or if the mean- 
ing be Divine authority. I write there against a possible 
opinion, namely, that the Vulgate has Divine authority ; 
and all who hold the opinion, and only they may regard 
me there as arguing with them. 

Point first. The sacred writers wrote the Hebrew and 
Greek originals, and not the Latin translation termed 
the Vulgate. This translation was the work of Jerome, 
and was made in the fourth century. Therefore the 
sanction of the inspired penmen cannot be claimed for 
Jerome's version of the Bible, a version made hundreds 
of years after they were in their grave. If Jerome were 



144 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

inspired, his version would be inspired too ; but as none 
will presume to claim inspiration for Jerome, the most 
learned of the Latin fathers,* so none ought to deny 
that his Vulgate version is to be treated like another 
uninspired work, tried and tested by works that are 
inspired. 

Point second. The Vulgate varies, in many a thing, 
from the original, the Latin differing, in a considerable 
number of places, if not in a point or two of import, 
from the Hebrew and Greek. Now how peculiar and 
extraordinary is the folly or falsehood in asserting that 
the Vulgate has Divine authority even where wrongly 
translating! Can the Vulgate be true, infallible, Divine 
even in its error, even where deviating from truth] 
The Hebrew and Greek original being the work of in- 
spired and therefore infallible prophet and apostle, and 
the Latin version being the work of uninspired and 
therefore fallible Jerome, we are bound by reason, com- 
mon sense, and logic, to make the latter turn aside and 
give way to the former, to make the Latin yield to the 
Hebrew and Greek, and not the Hebrew and Greek to 
the Latin. 

Point third. After the time of the council of Trent, 
pope Sextus V made some thousands of corrections in 
the Vulgate ; and after him, pope Clement VIII made 
herein some thousands more.f Thus two popes seve- 
rally corrected thousands of errors in a version that 

* In calling Jerome the most learned of the Latin Fathers, I do 
not mean to put him above them all in point of mind. On the 
whole, he was perhap equalled by more than one leading Latin 
Father, and he was certainly not superior to Augustine. Jerome 
had more learning, Augustine had more logic; the former being 
the greater memorizer, and the latter the greater reasoner ; the one 
being fitter for erudition, and the other for philosophy. Campbell, in 
his fifteenth Lecture on Ecclesiastical History, declares that " the 
two great lights of the Latin churcfc, were Jerome and Augustm." 

t See Infallibility of the pope, argument fourth. 



VULGATE, APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. 145 

their kirk had officially affirmed to have Divine autho- 
rity ! Moreover, Isidorus Clarius pretends to have rec- 
tified nearly one thousand faulty passages in that won- 
derful translation. Moreover, Bellarmine, a mighty and 
renowned papal champion, declares the Vulgate to re- 
quire many an alteration and emendation. What now 
can be said of the Divine Vulgate, and of the decree of 
the council of Trent % We may truly say this, that the 
decree was not Divine, nor the council wherefrom it 
sprang. 

Point fourth. The Vulgate perhap is not the best an- 
tient version of the Bible, being perhap somewhat infe- 
rior to the Peschito or Old Syriac. Three antient ver- 
sions of the Old Testament are nearly equal, or not 
very unequal in point of fidelity and general merit, 
namely, the Peschito or Old Syriac, the Vulgate, and 
the Septuagint ; and two antient versions of the New 
Testament are nearly on a par in general merit, namelj^ 
the Peschito and the Vulgate. And many or some Bib- 
lical critics deem the whole Peschito, or the Peschito 
version of the Bible, to be better than the whole Vul- 
gate. The Peschito version of the New Testament is 
very admirable, being perhap the first antient version 
hereof both in merit and in time, being the best and the 
earliest, superior and anterior to every other. I affirm 
nothing of any other antique version of God's word, 
either in whole or in part, as compared with the favo- 
rite of popery. Now how could the council of Trent be 
so presuming as to attribute Divine authority to the 
Vulgate, when no one attributes it to the Septuagint, 
and when no one attributes it even to the Peschito, a 
translation perhap superior to the Vulgate I How could 
the council dare to affirm the Vulgate to be divinely 
authorized, while neither they nor any other would 
dare to affirm so highly of the Peschito, though perhap 
the best of all the antique versions of the Bible 1 

7 



H6 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

Point fifth. The Vulgate is by no mean superior to 
our authorized English translation, to the Dutch trans- 
lation made by order of the Synod of Dort, or to some mo- 
dern translations in other tongues ; indeed it is inferior 
to them. Now suppose a protestant council, in London, 
Amsterdam, or elsewhere, to pronounce our English, 
the Dutch, or any other translation to have Divine autho- 
rity 5 affirming it to be equal to the Hebrew and Greek 
original? — what would the papal world say and do! 
Would not their outcry, complaint, denunciation, and 
imprecation be both loud and long! Would they not 
expose and promulgate the folly and criminality of the 
protestant council and protestant world! They would. 
But can the thing that would be wrong if done by the 
protestant, be right and becoming when done by the pa- 
pite 1 If protectants are bound to tell truth and main- 
tain verity, are papites free to propagate error ! and at 
liberty to proclaim an official lie! 

Point sixth. The Vulgate, I know, has Divine autho- 
rity, either if inspired or heaven-born, and therefore in- 
fallible, or if true and correct, if it agree fully with the 
sacred and inspired original, if it give the real, exact, or 
accurate meaning of the Hebrew and Greek* That how- 
ever was not the sum total of what the council of Trent 
had in view, was not the full amount of meaning of its 
formal decree, as may be shown by two reasons. 1st. 
That Divine authority is conditional, contingent, built 
on the slippery word if. 2nd* That Divine authority is 
common, every other translation of Holy Writ having 
Divine authority of that kind, in that manner, on like 
terms, equally with the Vulgate ; therefore in that mean- 
ing of the phrase Divine authority, the Vulgate is by 
no mean superior to any other Biblical version, all the 
versions being Divinely authorized. So far the two rea- 
sons. Now surely the council of Trent did not mean the 
foregoing conditional and common Divine authority. 



VULGATE APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. 147 

What did it mean 1 what kind of Divine authority 
did it really affirm 1 It might possibly mean four things. 
1st. That the Vulgate gives the main feature, the gene- 
ral outline, the leading particulars of revealed truth, of 
the sacred original. But every translation of the Bible 
then existing gave the same thing, so gives every one 
now existing, and so probably has given every one that 
ever has been existing. This meaning is quite true and 
undeniable, and one that none will gainsay. 2nd. That 
the Vulgate gives the inspired meaning of the Divine re- 
cord, better than any other version, being superior to eve- 
ry other version of the Bible, being the best, the least im- 
perfect of all Biblical translations, being a kind of incom- 
parabilis. This meaning is opposed to truth and fact, as 
Biblical critics know. See points fourth and fifth. 3rd. 
That the Vulgate gives the precise, exact, determinate 
signification of the Hebrew and Greek, neither more nor 
less ; gives the meaning, the whole meaning, and nothing 
but the meaning ; gives the sacred, sense word for word, 
and idea for idea ; being a version complete, perfect, 
and unimprovable. This meaning, this broad and sweep- 
ing import is not true, is very far from true ; and its un- 
truth could not be unknown to the council of Trent. 
This high character indeed is not true of any version 
in the world, far less of the Vulgate. See points second 
and third. 4th. That the Vulgate was so peculiarly, pro- 
videntially, miraculously guarded and protected by God, 
while being made, as to be supernaturally kept free from 
all error, and filled with pure truth. That it is rather an 
original than a copy, having a co-ordinate authority with 
the Hebrew and Greek, depending not on them, but ha- 
ving a distinct and independent authority of its own. 
That it is true not only in fact, but even through a kind 
of necessity ; that it must be true, that it cannot be er- 
roneous, that it is inspired. This meaning is even far- 
ther from truth than the last, and flies in the face of rea- 



1-18 POPERY IN SPECIAL, 

son, insulting and outraging plain common sense. See 
point first. Thus it appears to me that the council of 
Trent might possibly mean the foregoing four things. 

What thing or things however did it really mean 1 
What meaning or meanings of the four, did it actually 
hold? Thing first is altogether out of the question. 
Meaning first, though true, implies not Divine autho- 
rity ; for though the Vulgate gives the main feature and 
outline of the sacred original, it is not therefore Divine- 
ly authorized. Moreover, the council of Trent would 
hardly be so foolish as to affirm, with all the sanction 
of its official character, a proposition that no one pro- 
bably ever denied. To pronounce formally and offi- 
cially of the Vulgate, what is true of every version of 
the Bible, and what indeed is quite undeniable, would be 
an act of solemn trifling, a display of weakness and mock 
gravity quite unworthy of a great council met for great 
affairs. Thing second, too, is out of the question. Mean- 
ing second, even if true, would not imply Divine au- 
thority ; for even if the Vulgate gave the inspired 
meaning of the Divine record, better than any other 
version, it would r.ot be therefore Divinely authorized. 
Now giving the council of Trent credit for common 
sense, I conclude that it meant neither the first thing 
nor the second. It follows that it meant the third, or 
the fourth, or both. 

Subsection III. Apocrypha. To prove the Apocry- 
phal books to be wholly without Divine authority, I offer 
eleven reasons, not as all, but as enow. 

1st. They are nowhere mentioned, nowhere alluded 
to in the New Testament, receiving no notice whatever 
from Jesus Christ, or the apostles, or the other inspired 
people. 

2d. They were not received into the sacred canon, 
by the Jewish kirk, to whom, in old time, were com- 
mitted the oracles of God. Eom. 3 : 2. Were the books 






VULGATE, APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. 149 

inspired, their inspiration would be known to the Jews, 
and would be allowed and proclaimed by the Jewish 
people. 

3d. They were not received into the sacred canon, 
the canon of Scripture, by the early christian kirk ; all 
the first christians either knowing nothing at all of the 
books, or knowing them to be merely human. 

4-th. They were never viewed as declaredly inspired, 
as professedly a part of God's holy word, as forming a 
part of the christian sacred canon, by the early enemies 
of Christianity, Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, and the like. 

5th. The authors of many or most of the books are 
utterly unknown. 

6th. The authors who are known, were not inspired; 
none being a prophet or apostle, none being a man en- 
dowed with miraculous power, and none being even a 
friend, and companion, and colleague of inspired people. 

7th. Not one book of the whole was written in He- 
brew, the language of the Old Testament, all of them 
being in Greek, excepting Esdras second that is in La* 
tin. N. B. What are commonly called Esdras first and 
second, are called, in the sixth Article of the kirk of 
England, Esdras third and fourth, Ezra and Nehemiah 
being here called Esdras first and second. 

8th. Firstly. The Apocryphal writers, with per- 
hap one exception or two, do not claim inspiration. 
Secondly. Some of them actually and virtually dis- 
claim it. 

9th. The Apocrypha really contains folly and error, 
weak things and wrong ones. 

10th. In many a point, some of moment, the apocry- 
pha is even anti-scriptural, opposing and contradicting 
the Bible. 

11th. No other external or internal proof of inspira- 
tion, that belongs to the Bible, belongs to the apocry- 
pha; the other proof that the Bible has of being in- 



150 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

spired, not being enjoyed by its contemptible competi- 
tor, if one may be allowed to mention the Bible and 
spocrypha as competing. 

Reader, I have here offered to thee my eleven rea- 
sons, and hope they will content thy mind, as they con- 
tent my own. In fine, going from the special to the 
general, from the particular to the universal, I remark 
that the circle of argument showing the Divine autho- 
rity of the Bible, does not exist for the apocrypha ; the 
evidence applying to the former book not applying to 
the latter. 

Subsection IV. Article 1. Tradition. We no sooner 
turn our thought to the subject of tradition, than we 
think of the Talmudical trash of the Jews. One might 
have hoped that the example of the Jews, annoyed and 
wearied in body, enfeebled and crippled in mind, preju- 
diced and hardened against Christianity, and render- 
ed ridiculous and contemptible to others, by their huge 
and unwieldy colection of traditional trifles and foole- 
ry, would ever be an effectual warning to christians, 
to build their christian fabric not partly with the clay 
and mud of oral tradition, but wholly with the solid 
stone of the written word. Alas ! The hope has not 
been realized. We find an ample store of traditionary, 
if not Talmudic christians in the kirk of Rome. 

•Article 2. A word or two about the Talmud, as more 
than one reader may not be aware of its nature and cha- 
racter. The Jews have two Talmuds, the Jerusalem 
and the Babylon. Each contains two parts, Mishna and 
Gemara, Mishna meaning second law, and Gemara mean- 
ing perfection. The Mishna or second law is imagin- 
ed to be the oral law of Moses, or the interpretation 
of the written law of the Pentateuch. It is a large pile 
of traditions on many points, and by many people. The 
work was composed, or the traditions were collected 
and arranged, about A. D. 200, by Rabbi Judah or Jehu- 



VULGATE, APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. 151 

dah, who termed his work the Mishna. About A. D. 
300, or perhap later, Rabbi Jochanan took it into his 
head to perfectionate the good work of Rabbi Judah, 
and therefore wrote thereon a commentary that he 
termed the Gemara. (Perfection.) This Gemara deal- 
ing mainly in the traditions known and current in 
Canaan, is named the Gemara of Jerusalem. Sometime 
after, Rabbi Ashe, thinking the perfection of Jochanan 
to be imperfect, wrote another commentary on the 
Mishna, terming his work, like Jochanan, the Gemara. 
This Gemara dealing copiously in the traditions known 
and current in the countries eastward of Canaan, is 
named the Gemara of Babylon. Now the Mishna and 
Jerusalem Gemara form the Jerusalem Talmud, and the 
Mishna and Babylon Gemara form the Babylon Talmud. 
The Babylon Talmud is, by the Jews, deemed the bet- 
ter of the two, the Babylon Gemara excelling the Jeru- 
salem. Thus there are one Mishna and two Gemaras, 
and therefore two Talmuds. I may remark that the 
Mishna is a kind of comment on the Pentateuch, and 
that the Gemaras are comments on the Mishna. 

Article 3. Concerning the character, tendency, effect, 
the good or evil of the Hebrew tradition, we find by the 
words of our Lord himself, that " the tradition of the 
elders" did great harm, putting aside or obscurino- the 
written word. tT The tradition of the elders" was pre- 
ferred to the revelation of Jehovah ; the fallible words 
of men being substituted for the infallible words of God. 
t<f Ye have made the word o[ God of none effect by your 
tradition." Matt. 15 : 6 ; Mark, 7 : 13. 

Article 4. The Romanites, disregarding the obnox- 
iety to the ridicule and blame of man, and to that far 
more awful thing, the anger of Jehovah, have taken care 
not to allow the Jews to have the miserable monopoly 
of the manifold evil of tradition. Accordingly they have 
tradition upon tradition, obtained through the channel 



152 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

of priestly guile, resting on no authority but priestal un- 
supported assertion, and being impotent enough for any- 
thing good, though largely potent for evil Papites pre- 
tend to derive their tradition from Christ and the apos- 
tles, as Jews pretend to derive theirs from Moses and the 
prophets 5 but the pretence, in both, is impudent and 
absurd. Papites however, I may remark, pretend to 
have two kinds of tradition, apostolical and ecclesiastical. 
The latter kind they do not pretend to derive from Christ 
and the apostles, but avow to derive from their mere 
priestal authority. In truth, however, the pretended two 
kinds are but one ; for the traditions termed apostolical, 
are merely ecclesiastical or priestal. Or if some few 
really be apostolical, they are few indeed, not more per- 
hap than one in one hundred. Papal traditions are said 
to be about as bad as the Jewish. If all the papal tra- 
ditions were fairly and fully written, they would perhap 
rival the Jewish ones in number, in nonsense, and in 
nonscripturality. 

Article. 5. Having made the foregoing remarks on 
Tradition, I might perhap leave the subject as one not 
requiring to be handled more fully or minutely in a work 
of so general a kind as mine, a work going little into 
minute and dry detail. Eegarding the question of Tra- 
dition, however, to be one of superior and vital moment ; 
and tradition to be a thing of great repute in Eome, and 
of growing repute in Oxford; to be one that the Pope 
and company have long upheld as their firm upholder, 
and one that Pusey and company now try to uphold as 
an upholder of their more papal than protestant plan ; I 
deem it right to go more fully or particularly into the 
character and groundwork of tradition, and to show that 
though a powerful engine for evil, it is weak in proof, 
or even contravened by holy Scripture and good reason- 
ing. I will endeavor to prove tradition or oral tradition 
.to be a thing contrary to the Bible, and opposite to right 



VULGATE, 



TRADITION. 153 



reason, or to be a thing having neither a scriptural nor 
a rational leg to stand upon. I will give nine arguments. 

Argument first. We may fairly infer from the lan- 
guage of the New Testament, and even of the Old, that 
oral traditions of Divine origin did not exist under the 
Law or the Old Testament dispensation, Therefore we 
may fairly infer from analogy, that oral traditions, de- 
rived from God, do not exist under the Gospel, or the 
New Testament reign. It is very highly probable, or 
even certain from the words of our Lord and the apos- 
tles, and even of the Hebrew prophets, that divine oral 
traditions were not given to the Jews; and therefore it 
is highly probable, analogically, that divine oral tradi- 
tions have not been given to the christian world. 

Argument second. This argument is a kind of a 
priori or theoretical one, and one wherein we argue in 
a kind of analogical way. As Q»od enabled men infalli- 
bly to write a part, He probably enabled them so to 
write the whole. The written form being required for 
one part of Revelation, it was required for the other 
part ; to be written being needful for some, it was need- 
ful for all. Why commit a part of God's revealed will 
to the firm hold of writing, and leave a part to the frail 
keeping of the mere memory or mere morality of a long 
line of clergymen] Therefore probably no apostolical 
traditions were given to the kirk. 

Argument third. Setting up oral tradition as a rule 
of faith, is lowering and degrading the Bible, and leads 
to practical disregard to the written word. I may how- 
ever be told that if there be apostolical tradition or 
unwritten revelation, the Bible ought not to have the 
whole of our reverential homage or religious regard, 
but that the written and unwritten revelation ought to 
share the homage or regard between them. And I may 
be told that if there were apostolical tradition, the Bible 
would receive its proportional and due share of our at- 



154 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

tention. I however affirm, that if there were the unwrit- 
ten word, the w T ritten one would not be proportionally 
and duly attended to, but would be comparatively ne- 
glected and thrown aside. Tradition would then be re- 
garded too much, and Scripture too little. The fore- 
going would be the effect on two accounts. Account 
1st. The bare doubt or mere uncertainty about what 
traditions ought to be deemed apostolical, would keep 
the mind in a condition of painful solicitude and fever- 
ish anxiety, and therefore would hold it disproportion- 
ally and unduly to tradition, and from Scripture. If 
apostolical or oral traditions did exist, they would cause 
so great an amount of doubting, disbelieving, and de- 
bating, of questioning and answering, denying and af- 
firming, as to occupy the far greater part of time on 
oral tradition, and to leave but very little time for the 
written word ; the dubious and difficult matter of tra- 
dition absorbing our time and thought to the compara- 
tive exclusion of the sure and plain realities of the 
Bible. If people had ground for deeming portions, of 
divine revelation to be dwelling in the memory of men, 
or floating down the tide of time in the form of oral tra- 
ditions, they would be led, by piety and curiosity, to try 
to find them out ; and in hunting after unwritten and 
changing tradition, would neglect the written and un- 
changing volume. Account 2d. The clergy, assuming 
to be the guardians of oral tradition, and the medium of 
transmitting it from age to age, would naturally, in 
order to augment their dignity and importance, and to 
maintain and extend their pow r er over the laity or peo- 
ple, lay too great stress on tradition, and too little on 
Scripture ; would naturally, in order to exalt themselves, 
magnify that whereby they would be magnified, namely, 
tradition, and undervalue that whereby they would be 
rendered less important, namely, the Divine Scripture. 
The priesthood, as the channel or conveyer of oral tradi- 



VULGATE, APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. 155 

tion, would be tempted and drawn to honor and uphold 
the unwritten at the expense of the written word, and 
therefore to become more wanted and influential, un- 
duly crying up the value of the former, in order unduly 
to cry up their own value. This reasoning accords with 
what we know of human nature, and what we have seen 
in the papal priesthood. Now as, on the two accounts 
foregoing, tradition would deprive Scripture of its due 
part of attention, we may infer that probably no apos- 
tolical traditions were given to the kirk. 

Argument fourth. No real hint can be found in Scrip- 
ture, of oral tradition being permanently, or after the 
completion o( the canon of Scripture, a concurrent 
rule of faith, the authoritative colleague of the Bible. 
Not a single passage of Holy Writ can be brought for- 
ward fairly showing the written word to be only a part 
of the christian rule of faith, and the unwritten tradition 
to be the other part. According to what we read, the 
rule of faith is the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing 
but the Bible. 

Argument fifth. The Primitive Christian Fathers do 
not allow, or do even disallow tradition as a rule of 
faith, and appeal not to an oral standard of authority, 
but only to the written w r ord. The early Fathers looked 
up to the Bible, and not to an indefinite thing floating 
unprotectedly through the memory of a line of men, 
and being liable to adulteration by every one of the line. 
Therefore probably no apostolical traditions were given 
to the kirk. 

Argument sixth. Apostolical tradition more than the 
written word, would tend to magnify and exalt the 
clergy at the expense of the laity, or would afford room 
for the undue, unholy, and unhappy assumption and 
dominion of the priesthood over the mind, body, and 
estate of the people. Unwritten tradition being con- 
veyed down the stream of time by the clergy, and there- 



156 POPERY IN -Sr'ECIAL. ' 

fore depending somewhat on them, would, more than 
written, occasion clerical presumption and arrogant 
bearing, and give ground for their growth, not in grace, 
but in pride, power, plenty, pomp, and the like. Look 
at the papal priesthood in every age and country ; and 
you will find that when and where Tradition has been 
more regarded, they have been more corrupt ; the 
honor of tradition and the dishonor of the priesthood 
having, other things being equal, been in proportion, or 
gone hand in hand. Apostolical oral tradition more 
than apostolical writing, would afford a handle for ec- 
clesiastical corruption, or for priestly pride, power, and 
the like ; and therefore, probably, Divine revelation was 
committed not partly to memorial or oral tradition, but 
wholly to the Bible, to the firm hold and safe keeping 
of the written word. 

Argument seventh. How utterly improbable the pure 
descent of tradition ! How nearly impossible that the 
unwritten word or oral traditions would be transmitted 
or handed down from Christ and the apostles to us, 
quite uncorruptedly, or quite free from alteration, ad- 
dition, or subtraction! Regard two points. 1st. How 
could we depend on the memory of thousands or mil- 
lions of men in a great multitude of particulars 1 We 
could not depend thereon. 2d. How could we depend 
on the honesty of so many men in so many matters % 
We could not depend thereon. Now from the foregoing 
two points, we learn that the very great number of in- 
dividuals forming the long line of the priesthood, might 
easily corrupt oral tradition, corrupting in a twofold way, 
through want of memory and want of honesty, being 
defective in power and inclination, being both unable 
and unwilling. Hardly two men relate one and the same 
particular alike, or tell one and the same tale or anecdote 
without considerable variation. We may perhap be told 
that no tradition ought to be received but what would 



VULGATE, APOCRYPHA, TRADITION. 157 

agree with the rule of Vincent of Lerins, but what 
would have been held semper, ubique, et ab omnibus, al- 
ways, every where, and by all. Many a papite often de- 
sire to appear fond of the rule, quod semper, quod 
ubique, quod ab omnibus. Alas for them ! May we not 
infer a priori, or with a kind of anterior probability, that 
by the real application of the rule, the whole or very 
nearly the whole of papal traditions would be quite 
swept away 1 How many or rather how few papal tra- 
ditions would fully come up to the foregoing rule ! 
Now God foreknowing the result, that oral tradition 
would become corrupt, corrupted by men through weak 
memory, or weak morality, or both, did not commit a 
part of his revealed truth to the unsafe conveyance of 
oral tradition. 

Argument eighth. Many papal traditions are confess- 
edly and avowedly not apostolical, but merely ecclesi- 
astical or priestal. Now from the confession and avow- 
al, I go on to infer three things. 1st. Very few (if any) 
apostolical traditions are existing. If many apostolical 
traditions existed, few ecclesiastical or priestal ones 
would be really required and would exist, there being 
no need of many of both kinds $ therefore as there are 
many of the latter, there are few of the former. The 
Bible and many apostolical traditions together would, 
even, according to papal view, meet nearly every want 
that can occur, and serve for nearly every case that can 
be found, and so leave room for but few traditions ec- 
clesiastical ; therefore the ecclesiastical being many, 
the apostolical are no more than few. The many tra- 
ditions ecclesiastical doing so great a part, leave no 
more than a very little part to be done by traditions 
apostolical ; and as the very little part can be done by 
very few of the latter, very few merely can be found 
existing. Now no more than very few apostolical tra- 
ditions existing, it is probable that no apostolical tradi- 



158 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

tions exist or were given to the kirk, it being probable 
that no new and separate mode of divine revelation was 
employed to meet a single cause or two. 2d. Ecclesi- 
astical traditions would often be put forward under the 
cloak of apostolical ones, or as being apostolical, if the 
latter existed. This inference I take to be clear. There- 
fore probably no apostolical traditions exist or were 
given to the kirk. 3rd. It would sometime or often be 
difficult to distinguish an apostolical tradition from an 
ecclesiastical one, or to point out the former from the 
latter. How could we clearly ascertain what would be 
really apostolical, and what would not '( We may be 
told that the foregoing rule of Vincent of Lerins would 
keep all right. (See argument seventh.) That rule 
however would not alway clearly determine the point, 
would not alway guide one aright. Therefore probably 
no apostolical traditions are existing or were given to 
mankind. 

Argument ninth. Viewing the matter not as ante- 
riorly probable, or viewing it not in the theoretical way, 
but in the way of fact and actuality, what do we find \ 
What are the papal traditions \ how are they charac- 
terized 1 whether we regard all papal traditions, or 
more particularly those that are not confessedly or not 
avowedly ecclesiastical, those that are pretendedly apos- 
tolical. How many or rather how few can for a moment 
be deemed apostolic ! Hardly one may claim the apos- 
tolic character. Can two papal traditions be fully or 
clearly proved to be apostolical 1 First prove it of one, 
then go on to two, then to three, and so on. I opine 
that the prover will not have to go on far, or will not 
have a long journey. How many or rather how few are 
according to the rule of Vincent of Lerins, or have been 
held semper, ubique, et ab omnibus, always, every where, 
and by all ! How small a number will that rule sanc- 
tion \ one in one hundred 1 one in one thousand \ or 



VULGATE, ArOCRYPIIA, TRADITION. 159 

even any one at all] A full or bona fide application of 
the rule, will leave so very few apostolical traditions, (if 
it leave any,) and so very many ecclesiastical ones, as 
to render apostolical tradition a thing not worth being 
contended for merely on its own account, or merely in 
relation to itself alone. Apostolical tradition is cried 
up by the Roman clergy, not on account of its real 
worth or intrinsic value, but because it is a medium of 
promoting their own power, forwarding their own inte- 
rest, and gaining their carnal end ; because it is a con- 
venient inlet for whatever crafty invention an ambitious 
clergy can desire to impose on the conscience of the 
laity. The papal priesthood try to make tradition com- 
pete with Scripture, that they may the more easily con- 
trol the people. They employ tradition as a stepping- 
stone to their papal tyranny. I wind up or conclude my 
remarks on tradition, by desiring the reader to weigh 
and remember the following four things. 1st. Some 
traditions contradict others. 2d. Some traditions are 
either directly or indirectly contrary to Scripture. 3d. 
Some traditions are either directly or indirectly op- 
posed and condemned by the early Fathers. 4th. Some 
traditions are unsupported and unmentioned by, and 
therefore were unknown to the early or primitive 
Fathers. 

Subsection V. Firstly. The Bible, the written word, 
was and is held up before the world by the papal priest- 
hood generally, and was so by the council of Trent spe- 
cially, as an imperfect or inadequate guide in religion, 
or as a partial rule of faith. The Bible indeed is inade- 
quate, and so is Reason, and so are both combined, to 
guide people to popery, to lead them to the goal that 
the priests pointed out to them, to render men and 
women the mere property of a proud, pampered, and 
carnal priesthood, or to prove the monstrous conglome- 
ration of papal foolery and papal fraud. And the inade- 



160 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

quation of the Bible in popery, not in religion, was the 
reason why the pope and his satellites laid their unholy 
hand on the Vulgate, Apocrypha, and Tradition, by the 
combined operation of which three things, any thing 
may be proved, and any thing disproved ; pure religion 
be thrown down, and the papal image be set up in the 
province of Babylon. Dan. 3; Rev. 14 : 8 ; and 17:5; 
and 18. Popery is not in the Bible, and could not be 
upheld by the weak prop of infallibility ; therefore it 
was found expedient and unavoidable to look around for 
other aid. The recourse to the Vulgate, Apocrypha, 
and Tradition, was the last expedient, the dernier re- 
sort, the forlorn hope of falling popery , it was the des- 
perate measure of desperate men. The proverb tells, 
" Any port in a storm." 

Secondly, Though the Divine authority of the Vul- 
gate, Apocrypha, and Tradition had been advanced par- 
tially, cautiously, stealthily afore the time of the council 
of Trent, it w r as first proclaimed, formally and officially, 
by that notorious council. Why was not the formal and 
official proclamation afore that time 1 Because of the 
reason following. Ere the Reformation people were 
content to take things for true on priestal assertion 
only, to believe on trust, to credit without proof; but 
after that grand event, they would have sufficient, ground, 
would require ample evidence from some real or suppo- 
sed fountain of authority beside the priesthood. And 
as neither Holy Scripture nor Reason afforded good 
ground for papal invention and imposition, the pope and 
papal priesthood were obliged to have formal and open 
recourse to the Vulgate, Apocrypha, and Tradition. 
The three things were taken to do what the Bible and 
Reason leave undone. 

Thirdly. We run a fearful risk in profanely tamper- 
ing with the sacred record, we incur a solemn and awful 
responsibility in presuming to make Divine revelation 






KNOWLEDGE PROSCRIBED BIBLE FORBIDDEN. 161 

appear an uncertain and unsafe directory to heaven, we 
encounter a terrible hazard and dreadful danger in false- 
ly attributing the Vulgate, Apocrypha, and Tradition to 
God, with a view of protecting, by their spurious or 
adulterine aid, things that God's word and will refuse to 
sanction, or even clearly condemn. " If any man shall 
add unto these things, God shall add unto him the 
plagues that are written in this book. And if any man 
shall take away from the words of the book of this pro- 
phecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, 
and out of the holy city, and from the things which are 
written in this book. Rev. 22. If any preach any other 
gospel unto you than what ye have received, let him 
be accursed. Gal. 1 : 9. Add thou not unto God's words, 
lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Prov. 
30:6. What thing soever I command you, observe to 
do it ; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish there- 
from." Deut. 12 : 32. 



SECTION V. 



KNOWLEDGE A PROSCRIBED THING, AND THE BIBLE A 
FORBIDDEN BOOK. 

Subsection I. Knowledge a proscribed thing. Popu- 
lar ignorance is the papal favorite. Popery will have 
the people to be ignorant of the Bible, and of all other 
books that tend to enlighten and improve the public 
mind \ ignorant of theology, and of all parts of knowledge 
that are fitted to inform and expand the soul, to make it 
more intellectual, more free, and more elevate is the 
scale of being. Popery promotes popular ignorance of 



162 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

all kind; of revealed religion, and of natural ; of Chris- 
tianity, and of philosophy; of the Bible, and of books 
on natural knowledge ; of the hope and consolation of 
Divine revelation, and of the broad and beneficial power 
of human reason. Popery fears knowledge, and encou- 
rages ignorance degrading and brutal. 

Popery fears and proscribes philosophy in general, 
but not every kind of philosophy alike. It does more 
particularly hate and interdict moral and political philo- 
sophy, whereby we become acquainted with the nature 
of liberty ecclesiastical and political, and learn the reci- 
procal duty and right of men. Knowledge and philoso- 
phy, particularly moral and political philosophy, lead 
to liberty and popular right; therefore they are feared 
and forbidden by the pope and priesthood of Rome. 

Ignorance is the mother of devotion, according to 
the kirk of Rome. Agreeably to that vile, stupid, and 
wicked maxim, this unchristian kirk favors ignorance as 
her natural element, as a friend and ally in the work, 
less of saving people than of enslaving them. And by 
keeping the popular mind dark and degraded, popery is 
an instrument not of guiding men through wisdom's way 
to glory, but of leading them blindfold to destruction. 
Instead of saying that ignorance is the mother of devo- 
tion, we may say that ignorance is the mother of popery, 
ay, and the daughter too ; ignorance being of popery, 
both mother and daughter, both cause and effect. If 
ignorance be the mother of devotion, where can be the 
" reasonable service " enjoined by Paul 1 Rom. 12 : 1. 

Subsection II. Article 1. The Bible a forbidden 
book. That papal folk in general have been forbidden 
to read the Bible, hindered from searching the Scrip- 
ture, kept from consulting the blessed book of God, is 
too well known to require formal proof. Popery pros- 
pers far better in darkness than in light ; and therefore 
loves the former, and hates the latter. Popery came 



KNOWLEDGE PROSCRIBED — BIBLE FORBIDDEN. 163 

from the dark, from darkness thicker than Egyptian, 
and so retains an affection for its native element. Papal 
priests are well aware that their papal interest requires 
them to keep the people ignorant of God's word, as God's 
word condemns popery; therefore they vigorously exert 
themselves to keep their people about as ignorant of the 
Bible, as of the Koran. Of course, I write here of the 
priesthood in general, of the body at large, and not of 
the good minority. The pope and priesthood of Rome, or 
a great majority of them, do what they can to keep the 
great charter of Salvation from the hand, the head, the 
heart of the people, knowing that if the people become 
generally owners of the Bible, and generally acquainted 
with its contents, they will learn the real nature of 
popery, the unchristian character and fatal effect, will 
break through the galling and degrading restriction and 
shackle laid on them by their priesthood, and will take 
their departure from the mystical Babylon. 

I here quote the remarkable counsel given to the 
pope, by the papal bishops assembled at Bononia, some- 
time after the Reformation had begun, in order to con- 
sult about the upholding and confirming of popery ; 
where and when, among other things, they gave the 
following as their last advice, and as the greatest and 
weightiest of all. " That by all means, as little of the 
Gospel as might be, especially in the vulgar tongue, 
should be read to the people ; and that that little which 
is in the Mass, ought to be sufficient : neither should it 
be permitted to any mortal to read more. For so long 
as men were contented with that little, all things went 
well with them ; but quite otherwise, since more was 
commonly read. That in short the Scripture is that 
book which, above all others, hath raised those tempests 
and whirlwinds with which we were almost carried 
away. And in truth, if any one diligently considers it, 
and compares it with what is done in our church, he 



364, 



POPERY tfj SPECIAL. 



will find them very contrary to each other, and our doc- 
trine to be not only very different from it, but repug- 
nant to it." See Tillotson, Sermon xxx. 

The council of Trent declared as follows, according 
to the translation of the learned Hartwell Home's Pro-" 
testant Memorial. " Inasmuch as it is manifest from 
experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the 
vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every 
one the temerity of men will cause more evil than 
good to arise from it ; it is on this point referred to the 
judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by 
the advice of the priest or the confessor, permit the 
reading of the Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue 
by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and 
piety, they apprehend, will be augmented and not in- 
jured by it; and this permission they must have in 
writing. But if any one shall have the presumption to 
read or possess them without such written permission, 
he shall not receive absolution until he have first de- 
livered up such Bible to the ordinary !" 

The doctrine or practice of the Roman kirk, of ma- 
king the Bible a sealed book, a dead letter, a perfect 
prisoner, an inoperative thing, is utterly opposed to 
reason and revelation. Firstly. Unreasonable. I will 
give Slx reasons. 1st. We are bound to know God's 
Will as revealed in his word, therefore we ought to read 
what he has caused to be written. 2d. We are bound 
to use our own reason in judging of the Divine word 
and Wli]) therefore we ought to read for ourselves. 3d 
We are the more bound so to do, because of the variety 
of theological opinion in the world. 4th. Better S o to 
the clear and pure original spring or fountain-head, than 
dunk from puddled streams, from the water rendered 
muddy by running over the impure ground of human 
error and folly. 5th. Reading the holy Bible may 
qntcken our affection for holy life, may warm our 



KNOWLEDGE PROSCRIBED — BIBLE FORBIDDEN. 165 

nobler feeling, and may lead us to tend from bad to 
good, and from good to better. 6th. The Spirit acts 
through and by the written word j therefore in duly and 
fitly reading the sacred oracle, we may expect to re- 
ceive the sanctifying and comforting operations of the 
Holy Ghost, the sanctifier and comforter. Secondly. 
Unscriptural. " These words which I' command thee 
this day, shall be in thine heart ; and thou shalt teach 
them diligently unto thy children, &c. Deut. 6 : 6-9, 
To the law, and to the testimony. Isa. 8 : 20. Seek ye 
out of the book of the Lord, and read. Isa. 34 : 16. Ye 
do err, not knowing the Scriptures. Matt. 22 : 29. What 
is written in the law] how readest thou 1 Luke, 10: 26, 
Search the Scriptures. John, 5 : 39. The Bereans were 
more noble, in that they searched the Scriptures daily. 
Acts, 17:11. Whatsoever things were written afore- 
time, were written for our learning, that we, through 
patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have 
hope. Rom. 15:4. I speak as to wise men; judge ye 
what I say. 1 Cor. 10 : 15. If any preach any other gos- 
pel — let him be accursed. Gal. 1 : 9. Take the sword 
of the Spirit, the word of God. Eph. 6 : 17. And this 
I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more 
in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may ap- 
prove things that are excellent. Phil. 1 : 9, 10. Let the 
word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom. Col. 
3 : 16. Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good. 
I charge you, by the Lord, that this epistle be read unto 
all the holy brethren. 1 Thess. 5 : 21, 27. From a child 
thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to 
make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in 
Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of 
God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for cor- 
rection, for instruction in righteousness ; that the man 
of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all 
good works. 2 Tim. 3 : 15, 16, 17. Be ready alway to 



166 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason 
of the hope that is in you. 1 Pet. 3 : 15. We have also 
a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well 
that ye take heed. 2 Pet. .1 : 19. Beloved, believe not 
every spirit 3 but try the spirits, whether they are of 
God 5 because many false prophets are gone out into 
the world. 1 John 4:1. Blessed is he that readeth, and 
they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep the 
things that are written therein ; for the time is at hand. 
Rev. 1 : 3. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the 
Spirit saith unto the churches." Rev. 2 and 3. Paul's 
Epistles, excepting those to Timothy, Titus, and Phile- 
mon, are addressed to the kirk members in general, to 
the kirk at large ; and not to the priestal part merely. 
James writes " to the twelve tribes that are scattered 
abroad." Peter writes the first epistle " to the strangers 
scattered throughout Pontus, &c." and writes the se- 
cond " to all that have obtained like precious faith with 
us." John writes the first epistle " to children, fathers, 
and young men." 1 John, 2 : 1, 12, 13, 14. Jude writes 
u to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and 
preserved in Jesus Christ, and called." 

Article 2. Firstly, The kirk of Rome is well known 
to oppose the Bible Society \ to regard with fear, to 
watch with jealous caution, and to contravene, with 
ready zeal, the beneficent operation of that godlike in- 
stitution. What is the Bible Society ? Simply a grand 
institution, a magnificent engine, a powerful union for 
translating into every language, and sending to every 
nation, people, and family on the globe, the Bible, the 
pure Bible, the Bible without note or comment, without 
human exposition or human creed. Now what is here to 
excite the anger, and call out the opposition of chris- 
tian men! The Bible Society causes no anger or oppo- 
sition in heaven. Indeed, the birth of the noble Society 
caused joy in heaven among the saints, among the angels, 






KNOWLEDGE PROSCRIBED BIBLE FORBIDDEN. 167 

of God, and even to God himself ; but spread disappoint- 
ment, chagrin, and alarm through all the variety of dia- 
bolic powers. Popery, well knowing its anti-biblic origin 
and character, refuses to be tried and tested by the sacred 
standard, and therefore opposes the Bible Society. If 
Popery be according to the Bible, why is it afraid of 
the Bible and of the Society for promoting Biblical 
diffusion and control 1 If Popery were in the Bible, the 
fear would be ungrounded and irrational. If Popery came 
whence the Bible came, and go whither the Bible goes ; 
if it be a friend, ally, and coadjutor of the Bible, why is 
it a foe of a Society that, by enabling the Bible to travel 
over the world, would enable Popery to travel with it 
hand in hand and cheek by jole 1 

Secondly. The comical fancy of the Bible and Popery 
travelling together in co-operative union, reminds one 
of Lafontaine's fable of the two pots, the iron and the 
earthen pot, le pot de fer et le pot de terre, who took it 
into their head to agree to travel together to see the 
world, to study men and manners, to observe many a 
climate and constitution, 

To talk of sciences and arts, 

And knowledge gained in foreign parts. — Unknown. 

All things being ready, off started our travellers, the 
two pots, on the grand tour clopin- clop ant comme Us 
peuvent, hobbling, waddling, tumbling along as well as 
they were able. They had not gone far, however, when, 
by jostling and knocking against each other, the pot of 
iron, being the harder and heavier of the two, broke the 
pot of earth, shivered its fragile companion to pieces, 
and strewed its unlucky fellow-traveller in the dust, 
where it lies, ill-starred wight, a monument of fallen 
greatness, a memorial of prostrate ambition, an example 
of high hope laid low in ruin ! 



168 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

Ruin seize thee, ruthless iron pot ! 
Confusion on thy lonely travel wait ! 

Gray, altered. 

Now I humbly opine that the earthen pot of popery 
would not have gone far with the iron pot of the Bible, 
when by Biblical knocking and thumping, it would be 
brought to the level, and be compelled to share the me- 
lancholy fate of its renowned forerunner and prototype 
described by Lafontaine. Then the pope, the cardinals, 
the other papal priests both secular and regular, the 
monks and nuns, the eremites and friars " white, black, 
and gray, with all their trumpery," the contents of the 
popery pot, would be whirled about and aloft, the sport 
of every wind, as if not bigger nor more important than 
so many Lilliputians or Tom Thumbs; or perhap would 
be broken down to a crowd of little atoms wandering 
about at random, and calling on their blind god Chance to 
unite them into some other system of folly and of fraud. 
Popery appears to have a strong instinctive feeling that 
it is an earthen pot, being hugely afraid of confiding in 
the travelling attention of the iron pot Bible. The pope 
and priesthood of Rome know better than to commit 
their brittle earthy papal pot to a concussion with the 
hard and ferrean texture of Holy Writ ; being well 
aware that their frail vehicle would be broken by the 
contact, and they, its contents, spilled upon the ground. 

Hence, vain deluding joys, 

The brood of Folly, without father bred ! 

How little you bested, 

Or fill the fixed mind with all your toys ! 

Dwell in some idle brain, 

And fancies fond with gaudy shapes possess, 

As thick and numberless 
As the gay motes that people the sun beams, 

Or likest hovering dreams, 
The fickle pensioners of Morpheus' train. 

Il Penseroso. 



KNOWLEDGE PROSCRIBED BIBLE FORBIDDEN. 169 

Thirdly. Demetrius and the craftsmen, in opposing 
Paul and his companions, exemplify the papal priest- 
hood in opposing the Bible Society. Acts, 19. " Our 
craft is in danger," said Demetrius and his colleagues ; 
" therefore down Paul and Christianity ! and up Diana of 
the Ephesians, and the accompanying rites of idolatry !" 
M Our craft is in danger," say the pope and the priest- 
hood j " therefore death, a speedy death to the Bible So- 
ciety ! and life, long life to popery, to the multiform gain 
of imposture, to the loaves and fishes of corruption !" 
The Bible Society is indirectly and mediately against 
the kirk of Rome, and therefore the kirk of Rome is 
decidedly and obstinately against the Bible Society. 

Fourthly. For edification of the christian reader, I 
here quote a part of the Bull of his holiness, or unholi- 
ness, pope Leo XII against the Bible Society. " You 
are aware, venerable brethren, that a certain Society, 
called the Bible Society, strolls with effrontery through- 
out the world ; which Society, contemning the tradi- 
tions of the Holy Fathers, and contrary to the well 
known decree of the Council of Trent, labors with all 
its might, and by every means, to translate, or rather to 
pervert, the Holy Bible into the vulgar languages of 
every nation ; from which proceeding it is greatly to be 
feared, that what is ascertained to have happened as to 
some passages, may also occur with regard to others ; 
to wit, " that by a perverse interpretation, the Gospel 
of Christ be turned into a human Gospel, or what is 
still worse, into the Gospel of the Devil." To avert this 
plague, our predecessors published many ordinances j 
and in his latter days, Pius VII of blessed memory, sent 
two briefs * * * to show how noxious this most wicked 
novelty is to both faith and morals. We also, venerable 
brethren, in conformity with our apostolic duty, exhort 
you to turn away your flock by all means from these 
poisonous pastures ." 

S 



170 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

To the above quotation I append a part of the ad- 
dress from the Irish papal bishops to their clergy and 
people, on account of the Bull of Leo. r< Qn receiving 
this letter, replete with truth and wisdom, * * * we ex- 
claimed, Peter has spoken by Leo. * # * As to the books 
which are distributed by the Bible Society, under the 
names of Bibles or Testaments, as they treat of reli- 
gion, and are not sanctioned by us, or by any compe- 
tent authority in the Catholic Church, the use, the pe- 
rusal, the reading, or retaining of them, is entirely and 
without any exception, prohibited to you."* 

Article 3. The Unknown Tongue, or the public use 
of the Latin language in the papal kirk, might, accord- 
ing to natural and logical order, be taken into consider- 
ation here, the unknown tongue being a very effective 
mean of keeping the Bible from the people, and of 
keeping them ignorant of its holy light. Being how- 
ever a very important point, and one whereon I have a 
pretty deal to write, it cannot conveniently be handled 
here, therefore it will form an independent section. 

Article 4. Implicit faith. Implicit faith of the people 
in the priesthood, of the popular many in the priestal 
few, is a regular consequence of making the Bible a 
forbidden book. When the people are universally igno- 
rant of God's word, when they are hindered from read- 
ing the holy page of divine wisdom, and from acquiring 
the most utile and ennobling knowledge, they must de- 
pend on the wisdom and knowledge of other folk, and 
take their opinion wholly from the priesthood. They 
are also papally commanded so to do. Popery requires 
one to believe the bare assertion, to credit the mere 
ipse dixit of a priest ; to see with the eye, to hear with 



* The above two quotations are taken from Groser's " Six Lec- 
tures on Popery," a valuable work, and one that may be read with 
advantage. 



KNOWLEDGE PROSCRIBED — BIBLE FORBIDDEN. 171 

the ear, to think with the understanding of the priest- 
hood ; to read the Bible, and employ one's reason me- 
diately, by deputy, through the priestly few, they read- 
ing and reasoning for one! Kind and obliging men! 
The people, we are told, are to believe the Church. But 
believing the church, is believing the pope and papal 
priesthood ; for the pope and priesthood, quite indepen- I 
dently on the people, determine the doctrine of the 
church. Papal priests are to lay down the law; and 
we are to gape, and to swallow all their affirmation, scrip- 
tural or unscriptural, reasonable or unreasonable, right 
or wrong ! To read the Bible for one's self, or think 
for one's self, is deemed heresy, or a thing nearly as 
bad, by the kirk of Rome, the great whore, Rev. 17: I, 
the corrupter of Christianity, and the incubus of Chris- 
tendom. The pope and Roman priesthood virtually say 
to the soul or mind of the people, " Bow down, that we 
may go over." Isa. 51 : 23. 

What papal folk term implicit faith, appears to be of 
a twofold kind. 1st. When the implicit believer ig- 
nores the proof or evidence of the doctrine he believes. 
2d. When he ignores the doctrine itself, even the very 
name, being ignorant of the nature, names, and number 
of his doctrines! The second kind perhap is the more 
perfect of the two, being the more implicit. Now of 
course, their implicit faith is a mere nominal or imputa- 
tive (rather imputable) faith, is no more than believing 
by proxy, is no real faith or belief at all. According to 
them, one can believe every thing, and yet know no- 
thing ! one can believe every truth revealed in the 
Bible, without knowing any thing of any one truth 
there ! Implicit faith has been comically termed fides 
carbonaria or coaly faith, from being the faith of an ig- 
norant collier. Some one, whom I will call Inquirer, 
desired to examine a collier concerning his creed or 
doctrinal belief, when the following conversation occur- 



• 172 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

red. Inquirer. " What do you believe 1" Collier. " I 
believe what the church believes." I. " What does the 
church believe 1" C. " The church believes what I 
believe.'' I. " What do you and the church both be- 
lieve T" C, " The church and I both believe — the same 
thing !" 

Now, reader, what think you of the pretty scrap of 
Popery, implicit faith 1 Can you avoid exclaiming, with 
strong and virtuous indignation, " What abominable 
. folly and fraud are here !" The wise man declares, 
"That the soul be without knowledge it is not good." 
Prov. 19 : 2. The papal priesthood virtually declare, 
that the soul be without knowledge is good, very good, 
not indeed for his salvation, but for our carnal elevation, 
for our corrupt loaves and fishes, for our usurped domi- 
nion over the soul, body and estate of the popular many. 
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." Hos. 
4 : 6. And the papal priesthood have been wholesale 
destroyers, having had little knowledge themselves, and 
having allowed less or none to the people. "My people 
are gone into captivity, because they have no know- 
ledge." Isa. 5:13. And they were driven thither by the 
knowledge-hating priesthood of Kome. According to 
Popery, the people are to have not a reasonable and 
lively faith in the Lord, but an implicit faith in the 
priesthood ; not a faith purifying the heart, Acts, 15 : 
9, working by love, Gal. 5 : 6, and overcoming the 
world, 1 John, 5 : 4, but a faith perverting the princi- 
ple, operating by ignorance, and overturning the ration- 
ally religious connection between man and his Maker. 
They are to have a faith consisting with ignorance and 
immorality, depriving God of an intelligent, rational, 
scriptural, and holy worshipper ; and making the laic an 
ignoble and miserable slave, and the cleric a guilty and 
unprincipled tyrant. May the Lord deliver and comfort 
the injured, and humble and forgive the injurer, and save 



KNOWLEDGE PROSCRIBED — BIBLE FORBIDDEN. 173 

them both with an everlasting salvation! But in order 
to be saved, or to find pardon, the papal and priestal de- 
luder must repent, or turn from his deceptive and cruel 
doing 5 be kind and loving to man, lowly and penitent 
before God, good in himself, and an example of good- 
ness to his neighbor. 

Subsection IIL Prohibition of books and Index Expur- 
gatorius. Who has not heard of the index expur gator ius, 
that vile, tyrannical, and dark engine of papal Rome for 
prohibiting books, keeping off knowledge and light, and 
upholding the empire of ignorance and darkness, of 
mental and moral night \ Books of a utile and instruc- 
tive kind are not to be read by the people ; are carefully 
kept from the head and hand of the laity, in order that 
they may not learn the bad doing of Jhe priesthood ; 
may not become aware and informed of the unreason* 
able, unscriptural, immoral, despotical speaking and act- 
ing of the clergy. Any book tending to open the eyes 
of the public, and to expose the corrupt conduct and un- 
just domineering of the papal and priestal lords, was 
rabidly forbidden ; and then wo to the wight with whom 
it was found ! All books giving right information, and 
tending to form correct opinion on ecclesiastical and po- 
litical affairs, were not allowed to be read 5 all that would 
feed the intellect, illumine and enlarge the soul, and 
enable mankind to know their right, and the proper way 
of acquiring and retaining it, were doomed to the gloomy 
ban of the index. 

But though Popery prohibits books, it prohibits not 
all. It puts the ban or a formal stigma on the good or 
utile one, but allows the popular perusal of the inutile 
and hurtful. Works that tend to rivet their chain, the 
people may read ; books adapted to make them more 
passive in slavery, and more obedient to the pope or 
priest, they may read, mark, and learn. They are to 
read lying legends, and fabulous lives of real or pre- 



174 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

tended saints. They may pore over stupid tales of mon- 
kery, feigned and false account of monks and nuns, men 
and women who are often idle, ignorant, and immoral. 
They may read what will not make them wiser, but per- 
hap confirm them in folly ; what will not make them 
better, but may make them worse. In fine, the people 
ask for bread, and the priesthood gave them a stone ; 
the former begged a fish, and the latter gave a serpent. 
Matthew, 7. 

Subsection IV. Persecution has been largely employed 
as a papal medium for preserving the purity of the faith, 
and for guarding the people from the inroad of heresy ! 
The continual liability to be burnt, or otherwise judi- 
cially murdered for heterodoxy, is a wonderful expe- 
dient for keeping people orthodox ! Torturing the body 
will enlighten the soul ! Inflicting cruel blows on the 
material part will inject correct opinions into the mind! 
By wounding without, you put wisdom within ! Oh no- 
table discovery of the persecutor and inquisitor ! Oh 
marvellous invention of the pope and the devil ! Out- 
ward and cruel coercion cannot cause either conviction 
in the head or conversion in the heart. But yet papal 
persecution and the infernal inquisition have been ready 
at hand to oppose the beneficent reign, and even the 
very being of knowledge, and to maintain the dreary 
dominion of ignorance or mental night. If people would 
know, would read the Bible or other utile books, they 
were soon reminded of their heresy, and were speedily 
handed over to the diabolical dealing of persecution and 
the inquisitorial arm. See CampbelVs Lectures on Eccle- 
siastical History f , an admirable work, and one well wor- 
thy to be read by all. 

Persecution, however, is a subject whereinto I do not 
formally and fully enter here, not entering, on a two-fold 
account. 1st. Persecution is not confined in its applica- 
tion, to the support of ignorance, of the forbidding of 



UNKNOWN TONGUE. 175 

the Bible, and of the prohibiting of other utile books, 
but has a wider range, supporting the other papal doc- 
trines, or aiding Popery in general. Persecution has been 
an ever-present argument for proving the orthodoxy of 
the whole papal system. 2d. Persecution belongs strictly 
and properly not to popery, as taken or viewed in the 
present chapter, but to popery as lording over the state, 
and wielding the civil sword 5 for it belongs less to po- 
pery doctrinal than to popery political. Persecution 
appertains, in a mode proper and peculiar, to the pecu- 
liar and overgrown politikirkality * of popery, to its 
invasion of the right of the civil magistrate, to its ab- 
sorption of the political into the ecclesiastical, making 
the state to depend on the kirk, and to be the kirk's ser- 
vant, slave, and executioner ; or compelling the king or 
magistrate to carry into effect its cruel decision, and to 
perform all its wicked will. Therefore persecution ap- 
pertains fully to popery when the word popery is taken 
in a meaning very long and very broad ; in a meaning 
implying all the politikirkal, the sword, the fire, and the 
infernal inquisition ; the pope being the politikirkalian 
immoderate and intolerant. N. B. For the meaning here 
given to popery, see chapter second, section I. 



SECTION VI. 



UNKNOWN TONGUE, OR LATIN THE GENERAL LANGUAGE 
OF POPERY. 

Subsection I. Article 1. With little inquiry we shall 
find that the papal use of the unknown tongue, or unin- 

* The word politikirkality comes from political and kirk, and 
means political churchism or kirkism. Moreover, the words politi- 
kirkal } politikir kalian, and the like, come from the same original. 



176 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

telligible medium, is in complete opposition to reason, 
to the Bible, to the conduct of the writers of the New 
Testament, to that of the pure and early christian kirk, 
and to that of the old Hebrew kirk or system. 

Firstly. Using the unknown tongue is in complete 
opposition to reason. 1st. Mediately. The reasons prov- 
ing that the Bible ought to be read, do mediately and 
consequentially prove that it ought to be in the known 
or vulgar tongue ; for it cannot be read if it be not in a 
known tongue. In order to be read it must be in a 
tongue known to the reader. See section last, S. II. 
article 1, where six reasons are given for reading the 
Bible. 2nd. Immediately. To the question, What good 
grounds are found in reason or philosophical propriety, 
for conducting the worship of God in a tongue unknown 
to the people ; in a tongue that is to the hearer " as 
sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal!" 1 Cor. 13 : 1, 
one may answer, None at all, no good ground at all. 
Only think of British protestants conducting their reli- 
gious service in Chinese ! Imagine the British House 
of Commons carrying on their debate in Hebrew or Ara- 
bic ! Fancy the lawyers in London pleading in the lan- 
guage of Iceland or Japan, in a language unknown to 
the judge, the jury, and the spectators ! Conceit a pub- 
lic meeting in London, Paris, or Rome, held to take 
measures for preventing cholera, or for guarding from 
fire, debating the point in Sanscrit or Coptic! Scripture, 
prayer, and sermon, in an unknown tongue, are about as 
unsatisfactory to the intellect, as meat and drink merely 
drawn on paper, merely painted or pencilled, are to the 
stomach. The former are sound without sense, and the 
latter are color without substance. Can one remove 
hunger by a paper pie or a painted plum-pudding \ No. 
How then can one content, feed, and improve the soul 
by a word without an idea ; by a sign signifying nothing; 
by language that stops in the ear, entering not the mind 1 






UNKNOWN TONGUE. 177 

If man were a mere material machine, he might be ad- 
dressed in any manner ; in Latin or Greek, Teutonic or 
Sclavonic, Patagonian or Hottentotonian ; by the bark- 
ing of a hound, the chattering of an ape, the bleating 
of a sheep, or the braying of a donkey. Man, however, 
having a soul, a mind, a something that will think and 
feel, he requires better treatment, demanding to have 
his understanding illumined, and his reason employed, 
claiming to be viewed, not as a low sort of brute, but as 
an inferior kind of angel. 

Secondly. Using the unknown tongue, is in com- 
plete opposition to the Bible. 1st. Mediately. The 
Biblic passages proving that the Bible ought to be read, 
do mediately and consequentially prove that it ought to 
be in the known or vulgar tongue. See under Firstly. 
2nd, Immediately. The apostle Paul appears, in Cor. 14, 
to have had a prophetic eye on the preposterous plan of 
the kirk of Rome, the custom of reading the Bible and 
praying, if not preaching, in an unknown tongue : and 
gives an anticipatory condemnation thereof. Read the 
whole chapter. Moreover, the gift of tongues by the 
Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost Acts 2, is a clear 
indication of the Divine will that people shall be ad- 
dressed in a language that they understand ; and there- 
fore is a clear condemnation of the papal scheme. More- 
over, a remarkable passage of the Old Testament is in 
direct opposition to the plan of the kirk of Rome. ?t They 
read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave 
the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." 
Nehemiah, 8 : 8. 

Thirdly. Using the unknown tongue, is in complete 
opposition to the conduct of the writers of the New Tes- 
tament. The writers of the New Testament employed 
the Greek tongue, writing in the language then more 
known than any other in the civilized world. Now the 
adoption by the inspired penmen, of the Greek, the lan- 

8* 



178 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

guage then most widely spread and most commonly un- 
derstood, is a very strong argument in opposition to the 
papal plan of shutting up the Bible and Prayers in an 
unknown tongue. 

Fourthly. Using the unknown tongue, is in complete 
opposition to the conduct of the pure and early christian 
kirk. 1st. Early kirk of Rome. The conduct of the cor- 
rupt kirk of Rome, during many centuries, has been in 
direct and palpable opposition to that of the pure and 
early kirk of Rome. Soon after the christian era the 
Roman kirk adopted a Latin version of Scripture, using 
it in public and in private, in the temple and the dwell- 
ing. And it preferred the Latin translation to the in- 
spired original, because Latin was the language of the 
Italian people, and well understood by Italian christians, 
and Greek and Hebrew were not. The pure and early 
Roman christians thought it better to employ a fallible 
version that they knew or understood, than to use the 
infallible original, whereof they were ignorant, prefer- 
ring a tongue known to a tongue unknown. And they 
judged well and wisely. Modern Rome however pre- 
fers a tongue unknown to a tongue known ; preferring 
Latin, a dead language now, to Italian in Italy, to French 
in France, to Spanish in Spain, and the like. The an- 
tient kirk of Rome used Latin, because the living lan- 
guage then; the modern kirk, acting contrarily to the 
antient, will not use Italian and the like, though the 
living languages now. The former took intelligible 
Latin, and herein did right ; the latter w 7 ill not take 
intelligible Italian, and herein does wrong. The former 
preferred the uninspired Latin to the inspired Greek 
and Hebrew, and was right ; the latter will not prefer 
the uninspired Italian to the uninspired Latin, and must 
be very and extremely wrong. For the former had 
more reason for keeping to the Greek and Hebrew 
original, that being inspired and therefore infallible 3 



UNKNOWN TONGUE. 179 

than the latter has for keeping to the Latin version, that 
being uninspired and therefore fallible. Now bearing in 
mind that the antient kirk of Rome rejected the public 
use of the infallible original, because unintelligible to 
the people, for that of a fallible version that was intelli- 
gible to them, and that the modern kirk of Rome will 
not reject the public use of one fallible version that is 
become unintelligible for that of another not more falli- 
ble, that is understood by all, we find the two kirks pull- 
ing in a contrary direction, not indeed in relation to the 
dead letter, but in relation to the spirit, the vitality, the 
main and essential part of religion. In regard to the 
soul or substance, to the head and the heart, the modern 
Roman kirk acts in a way directly opposite to that of 
the antient; the antient having spoken to the mind, and 
tried to subject man to the government of God; and the 
modern speaking to the ear, and trying to bring man un- 
der the rule of the priesthood. The one would have 
christians in nature, the other will have them in name ; 
the one desired a christian freeman, the other longs for 
a papal slave. Therefore the one used a tongue known, 
and the other employs a tongue unknown and inutile. 
*2nd. Other early kirks. All other early or primitive chris- 
tian kirks took good care to have the Bible translated in- 
to the known or popular tongue, the language of the peo- 
ple. East and west, north and south, the early christians 
had and read the holy volume in their own well known 
tongue. They were utterly opposed to locking up the 
word of God in a dead and barren language, or to keep- 
ing the Bible concealed from the people at large. 

Fiflhltj. Using the unknown tongue, is in complete 
opposition to the conduct of the old Hebrew kirk or 
system. The practice of the old Hebrew kirk was di- 
rectly opposed to that of the kirk of Rome. First. The 
Holy Scripture was in Hebrew, the known and vernacu- 
lar tongue of the people. Second. After the return 



180 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

from Babylon, when the pure Hebrew language was not 
known to all, care was taken to make the revealed will 
of God known to all, by translating from the pure He- 
brew, into the language more popularly known. Means 
were employed to enable the people to know the mean- 
ing of the Divine record, and to understand the words 
of eternal life. See Nehem. 8 : 8. 

Article 2. It is worth while to inquire the corrupt 
motive the papal kirk has for being in love with the sin- 
gularly absurd and cruel custom of speaking only to the 
outward ear, by using the Latin language, a custom at 
war with common sense and good feeling. Without pre- 
tending to mention all the motives, I will mention five. 

1st. To keep the people ignorant, and therefore de- 
pendent on the priesthood. " Ignorance is the mother 
of popery, ay, and the daughter too; ignorance being of 
popery, both mother and daughter, cause and effect." 
See section last. 

2d. To have a bond of union between the many 
priests, binding all the members of the priesthood in one 
huge confederation, in one great alliance, one mighty 
league, in one body wieldy, tractable, governable ; a 
body separate and apart from the people, alien to the 
laity in language and interest, and opposite and hostile 
to popular right, and the spread and dominion of liberty. 

3d. To bind the different sees to the see of Rome. 
Latin being the antient language of Rome, the adoption 
of Latin as the general and official language of a kirk, 
marks the kirk with an implicit subjection to the kirk 
of Rome, making it a part and parcel of the kingdom 
of the Beast. 

4th. To enable the priesthood to be ignorant of 
living languages. 

5th. To cause the Vulgate version of the Bible, the 
favorite translation of the kirk of Rome, and that is in 
Latin, to be more authoritative in the eye of the Bible 



UNKNOWN TONGUE. 181 

reader, and more exclusively entitled to veneration and 
regard. 

Subsection II. If religious improvement and general 
utility, instead of corruption, carnality, and special in- 
terest, were the grand object pursued by the papal kirk 
or papal court, it would adopt the Greek for its official 
language, in preference to the Latin. To prove that the 
Greek deserved to be taken rather than the Latin, I will 
give six reasons. 

Reason first. Greek is the original language of the 
New Testament, the more important of the two grand 
divisions of the Bible. Therefore making Greek the 
general language of the kirk, would tend directly to 
make the New Testament generally known, and so lead 
to the diffusion and well-being of Christianity. Real or 
pure Christianity, however, was not the great end that 
the papal kirk had in view. 

Reason second. Greek gives access to a very good 
antient version of the Old Testament, the Greek ver- 
sion of the Seventy, called the Septuagint. This is a 
leading antique version of the Old Testament, both in 
time and in truth. See Section III, Subsection II, point 
fourth. 

Reason third. Greek literature in general is decid- 
edly superior to the Latin, the intellectual treasure of 
Greece preponderating that of Rome. Greek philoso- 
phy and Greek poetry are superior to their rivals in the 
old Latin tongue ; and in other particulars, the Greek 
remains are not inferior to the Latin. 

Reason fourth. Greek has never ceased or failed to 
be a living language. 1st. It was the language, more 
or less, of the Lower, Eastern, Constantinoplan empire. 
2d. It has ever been the language of Greece proper. 
I know that modern Greek differs somedeal from an- 
tient 5 but even if it differ very much, if it differ in par- 
ticulars very many and very great, it is yet fundamen- 



182 POPERY IN SPECIAL 

tally and essentially the same language. And do I hope 
that the literary public, and the government of modern 
Greece, will take good care to reject the modern inno- 
vation and barbarism, and to recur to the noble Greek 
of antiquity. If they can make antient Greek better, 
let them do so ; but let them neither make it worse, 
nor alter it for the sake of mere alteration. 

Reason fifth. Greek is a better language than Latin. 
It may not have the pomp, the majesty of the Latin ; it 
may be in this point inferior to its rival ; but it is supe- 
rior in at least four other points. 1st. It is more musical. 
2nd. It is more copious. 3rd. It is more flexible. 4-th. It 
is more precise. In what point beside melody, fertility, 
flexibility, and precision, it goes beyond the Latin, I do 
not presume to affirm. But I do affirm (what indeed is 
very well known) that it clearly outdoes the Latin on 
the whole. 

Reason sixth. Greek is more original than Latin in 
three ways. 1st. The Greek tongue lends largely to the 
Latin, and borrows very little in return, being one of 
the main fountains of the Latin tongue, and deriving 
herefrom few Greek words. 2nd. The Greek tongue 
being earlier than the Latin, having been formed afore 
it, goes farther back into antiquity, lying nearer the 
grand original, the primal or radical language of all, the 
language of Adam and Eve, the Hebrew, if Hebrew be 
what I presume it to be, the great original, the fountain- 
head, the parent of the numerous lingual family. 3rd. 
The Greek tongue, I apprehend, owes less to other 
tongues, is less derivative, more primitive, more fully 
formed from things in nature, from external and inter- 
nal phenomena than the Latin. 

Subsection HI. Why was not the Greek taken, instead 
of the Latin, for the medium of communication between 
literary men, for the common language of the learned 
world 1 That it ought to have been so taken, appears 



UNKNOWN TONGUE. 183 

tolerably clear from the six reasons given in the last 
subsection. Unless reasons equally strong can be found 
on the side of the Latin, I shall think the Greek deserv- 
ed to be chosen as the lingual organ of the republic 
of letters. Why then was Greek disregarded in favor 
of Latin 1 

A leading reason on behalf of Latin was, unques- 
tionably, the following : Latin having been the leading 
language of the Roman empire, became, by natural con- 
sequence, by the operation of political and geographi- 
cal event, the grand original of the language of many 
of the nations whereinto the empire became divided. 
On the invasion and dissolution of the empire by the 
northern barbarian, the Latin, the language of the con- 
quered, was mingled with the language of the con- 
queror ; and being altered and corrupted by the north- 
ern hordes, served for the foundation of the language of 
Italy, Spain, France, and the like. Latin corrupted by 
the Heruli, the Goth, the Lombard, and others, went to 
form Italian. Latin corrupted by the Goth, the Moor, 
and others, went to form Spanish. Latin corrupted by 
the Goth, the Frank, and others, went to form French. 
Thus in Italian, Spanish, and French, the grand essen- 
tial, the principal ingredient, the main body, is Latin. 
Now Latin being the great fountain of several modem 
European tongues, had some claim to be taken for the 
learned language of Europe. N. B. I am aware that 
some critics do not deem Latin to be the grand essen- 
tial or main body of Italian and the like. They deem 
Latin to be not the major part, but the minor one, judg- 
ing Gothic or the like to be the main fountain or the 
foundation. Without pretending to be a good authority 
on the lingual point, I incline to the opinion that I have 
given, namely, that Latin is the major part, and not the 
minor one. Perhap, however, the two opposing opinions 
may meet half-way, the Latin being taken for half of 



184 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

the Italian, being neither a superior nor an inferior foun- 
tain to the Gothic, but an equal one. 

I have omitted to mention Portuguese, though Portu- 
guese, too, comes from the Latin. My reason for the 
omission is, that Portuguese nearly resembles Spanish, 
the two being dialects of one and the same tongue, 
rather than two and different tongues. 

An additional reason in favor of the Latin claim to 
the high honor of being the literary language, is deriv- 
ed from the part taken by the Latin in the formation of 
the language of England. We Britons have drawn 
largely from the Latin spring ; so largely as to make 
Latin one of the two main fountains, the second original 
of our language ; the two great originals of our noble 
tongue being Saxon and Latin. Two grand political 
events tended jointly to make the Latin contribute 
abundantly toward the composition of the English. 1st. 
The Roman conquest. The Romans, however, appear 
not to have been able to make their language take root 
in our isle so widely and deeply as in Hispania and Gaul ; 
therefore the retirement of the Roman legions was fol- 
lowed by the departure, politically, nationally, generally, 
of the Roman language. 2nd. The French conquest 
under William of Normandy. This great event brought 
the Latin to our shore a second time, though in a man- 
ner circuitous, indirect, or mediate. Now Latin being 
perhap the second original of our tongue, French maybe 
is the third. It follows that the first, second, and third 
fountain of our fine language, taken in the order of im- 
portance or quantity, are, maybe, Saxon, Latin, French. 

Nations, that in forming their own tongue, borrowed 
from the Latin because it had been taken as the learned 
language, might, in like manner, borrow from the Greek, 
had Greek been taken as the language of the learned 
public. Therefore borrowing from the Latin merely be- 
cause it had been taken as the tongue of the learned, is 



TRANSUB5TANTIATI0N. 185 

no natural or original reason in favor of the claim of the 
Latin to be so taken ] for if the Greek had been taken 
instead, Greek would be, so far, the lingual bank whence 
Ave should borrow. Whatever tongue is taken as the 
learned one, becomes hereby a fountain wherefrom other 
tongues draw. 

I am wandering, however, from Popery, and am be- 
ginning to meddle with matters that lie somewhat aloof 
from my proper and natural path of mental exertion. 
Therefore I quit the consideration of lingual affairs, 
leaving them to the discussion and decision of a Crich- 
ton, a Bentley, a Selden, and other names of like renown. 



SECTION VII. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



Subsection I. We have here a huge and overgrown 
monster, a mere bulk of deformity in the eye of reason. 
Papal folk pretend that, in the Lord's Supper, the bread 
and wine are really and truly changed, by the act of 
consecration, into the flesh and blood, the human body 
of Jesus Christ ! Reasonable and Scriptural reader, do 
I commit a wrong in calling the doctrine a monster ! 
Hear a learned and leading cardinal. Drelincourt re- 
lates that cardinal Perron, being asked by some of his 
friends, in his last sickness, what he thought of Tran- 
substantiation, replied, ff It is a Monster." 

I opine that papites hardly mean that the bread and 
wine are turned, in consecration, not only into our 
Lord's Body, but even into His Body, Soul, and Divi- 
nity ! I take their theory to be, that the bread and wine 



186 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

become converted into the mere body, and by the con- 
version, become peculiarly joined to the soul and divi- 
nity. As I understood their incredible whim, the soul 
and divinity become present in the eucharist, not be- 
cause they are made from the bread and wine, but be- 
cause they are inseparably connected with the body 
that is made therefrom. 

According to popery, the Soul of our Lord, in the 
eucharist, is present to the body, there being both body 
and soul. In holding the soul to be present, papites are 
right on several accounts, whereof I will mention two. 
1st. The body and soul ought to be together. Where 
should the body be, but about and around the soul ] 
And where should the soul be, but in the body 1 The 
body and soul are proper and natural companions. 2d. 
Any bread and wine body does not become a body of 
our Lord, without or afore a junction to his soul, a 
junction made after consecration. Without being then 
joined to his soul, the body is not properly his body. A 
number of particles of matter, however put together, 
however framed and figured, that had never been joined 
to my soul, could not well be called my body. Whatever 
the shape or figure, the body can hardly be termed my 
body till it is joined to my soul. A set of material par- 
ticles do not rightly constitute a body of any one, be- 
cause of a mere special arrangement or organization, 
for there ought to be a connection with the soul or 
mind. It follows that any given bread and wine that 
have never been our Lord's body, cannot well become 
so, without becoming formally and finally joined to his 
soul. Therefore in order that the sacramental elements 
may become a proper body of our Lord, his soul must be 
there, and be peculiarly joined to them after consecra- 
tion. The bread and wine being turned not into the old 
body of our Lord, but into a new body, the soul must 
become newly present to it, ere it can become his body 






TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 187 

properly and fully. N. B. I here presume that the bo- 
dies of our Lord are different bodies, and not the same 
body ; and that, at the time of consecration, they have 
not been joined to the soul. The point will be proved 
in Subsection II, Argument third. 

According to popery, the Divinity of our Lord, in 
the eucharist, is present to the body and soul, there 
being body, soul, and divinity. 

Subsection II. In opposition to the extravagant, pue- 
rile, barbarian conceit, the preposterous and absurd 
vagary of Transubstantiation, I offer the following 
eighteen arguments. 

Argument first. The doctrine is opposed to every one 
of the five senses; not to one or two only, but to all. 
It is opposite and contradictory to seeing, feeling, tast- 
ing, smelling, hearing ; is at irreconcilable enmity with 
eyes, hands, palate, nose, ears. Moreover, it has oppo- 
sed and contradicted the senses not only once, or 
twice, or few times, but millions, billions, trillions of 
times, even during the very long term of eighteen hun- 
dred years, and throughout the whole extent of the 
christian world, every when and everywhere , or not 
merely of A, B, or C, or of one man, woman, or child, 
but of the whole alphabet, or of every man, woman, and 
child who have been connected with the eucharist. 
The doctrine has contravened the five senses in all 
christian time, and in all Christendom ; or in other 
words, of all people concerned. Heaven help one to 
escape from the doctrinal monster. Had we no eye to 
see, no hand to feel, no mouth to taste, no nose to 
smell, no ear to hear, I know not what reception we 
might give to transubstantiation ! but having the five 
senses all complete, we are bound either to disallow the 
hideous papal phantasma, or to throw aside the common 
sense, hurling rationality to Eolus and the wind. If the 
five senses deceive and mislead in one case, they de- 



188 rOPERY IN SPECIAL. 

serve no credit in any other case ; if they tell one that 
flesh and blood are bread and wine, they are liars, im- 
postors, and knaves, and merit no belief in their testi- 
mony. Behold us, then, at open war with our five sen- 
ses, our five natural guides, our five leaders in relation 
to external things, to the material world without and 
around ! What are we then to do 1 I will tell you, if 
you will tell me what a ship is to do in the open ocean, 
without sail, ballast, helm, compass, sun, moon, or star. 
All hail to the happy day of scepticism, Pyrrhonism, 
universal doubt ! All hail to Berkeley who would have 
no matter, and to Hume who would have no mind; to 
the Idealism of the former, and to the Impressionism of 
the latter!* All hail to ignorance, to folly, to chaos, to 
confusion ! Moreover, all thank to the pope and priest- 
hood of Rome, for by them we learn that we need not 
believe the evidence of our senses when they give un- 
favorable testimony. Do a man's senses tell him that 
he is exposed, on an open down and in a dark night, to 
cold, and wind, and rain X Let him instanter become a 
papite, and lo, he may instanter find himself laid in a 
warm bed, snugly wrapped in pillow, sheet, and quilt ! 
Man, tell thy senses they are fools or false reporters. 
Is a poor child crying through nakedness and hunger 1 
Popery will say that the back is well clad, and the belly 
well crammed. Many think, according to the senses, the 
fallacious five, that they live on poor fare; while, ac- 
cording to papal wisdom, they may be faring sumptu- 
ously every day. A poor Hibernian's palate says the 
dinner is potatoes, a priest will tell him 'tis a rich plum 
pudding. A miserable starveling using all the five sen- 
ses, the false five, can find nothing on the table but 

* I remark, in passing, that I am an enemy to the peculiar meta- 
physical theory of both metaphysicians here named, of the bright 
and benevolent soul of Berkeley, and of the dark and dire spirit of 
Hume. 



TRANSUE8TANTIATI0N. 189 

sorry soupe maigre; the pope can tell him that he is 
really feasting and luxuriating on a fat sirloin. But 
how knows the priest better than the Irishman] and 
how is the pope wiser than the starveling ? Their re- 
verend selves are hand in hand, and cheek by jole 
with infallibility ! Wonderful arrangement of the papal 
kirk ! She takes away the five senses, and gives, in re- 
turn, infallibility. Admirable casuistry ! happy compen- 
sation ! beautiful exchange ! 



-Exchange 



Is held no robbery. 

Unknown. 

I deem it right to remark that our blessed Lord plainly 
and directly taught men to rely on the certainty of sense, 
to depend on the testimony of sight, feeling and the 
like, and thereby condemned, indirectly, and consequen- 
tially, the monster transubstantiation which requires 
men to reject the testimony of sense as an uncertain or 
deceptive thing. "Behold my hands and my feet, that 
it is I myself: handle me and see ; for a spirit hath not 
flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Luke, 24:39. 
Now only submit the doctrine of Transubstantiation to 
our Lord's own test : we ask no more. 

Argument second. According to transubstantiation, 
Christ's one body is at once in many places, in ten, or in 
a million, or in ten million ! or else he has at once many 
bodies, ten, or a million, or ten million ! For accord- 
ing to the consummate piece of foolery, his human na- 
ture can be, at one and same time, in every nation, 
province, county, hundred, parish, town, and village upon 
the globe ; as in all the places can be a priest perform- 
ing, at one and same time, the miracle of changing 
bread and wine into flesh and blood. Oh egregious igno- 
rance ! Oh exquisite folly ! 

Argument third. According to the gross and stupid 



190 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

scheme, our Lord's one body has been made, and then 
destroyed, eaten and drunk, millions or billions of times, 
and in many places at one time ! or else he has had 
millions, or billions, or trillions of bodies made, and then 
destroyed, eaten and drunk! The Eucharist has been 
performed millions or billions of times, and in many 
places at one time, or in one, few, or many places at 
every time, since the christian era ; and at every time, 
the same body of our Saviour, in one, few, or many pla- 
ces, or else one, few, or many new bodies of him, have 
been made, and then destroyed, eaten and drunk ! 

I here presume that, if one body be not held sufficient 
for all cases, it is not held so for more than one case ; 
and therefore that a separate body is found for every 
separate case, whether it be place or time, one body not 
serving either for two places or for two times. Possibly 
however a papal wiseacre may hold that, though differ- 
ent places require different bodies, different times re- 
quire but one body, one body sufficing for only one 
place, but for all times. Whatever (or whether) mode 
of folly be held, the scope, marrow, and spirit of the 
argument remain in full power. 

Our Lord has had millions, or billions, or trillions of 
bodies made, and then destroyed, eaten and drunk ! 
The bodies must all be different, every host being 
different from every other, and from the Son of Mary, 
from him who was born of the virgin, and who died 
on the cross, and who is now glorified at the right 
hand of Jehovah. That the bodies are different bodies, 
and not the same body, will be clear from the following 
two reasons. 1st. One and same body cannot be in 
two or more places, at one and same time. 2nd. The 
bodies are made of different particles of matter, or from 
different portions of bread and wine. The particles of 
matter constituting any eucharistal bread and wine, are 
different from the particles constituting any other; and 









TRAtfSTTBSTANTIATION. 191 

the two sets of particles being different, and not same, 
the two breads and two wines are different, and not 
same. Therefore the host or body made of one set of 
particles, or one bread and wine, is different from the 
host or body made of another set of particles, or 
another bread and wine. And any host or body differs 
radically both from every other host or body, and from 
the Son of the Virgin Mary. A host or bread and wine 
body, not being born of Mary, cannot be her son. Diffe- 
rent cannot be same, therefore many different bodies 
cannot be one and same body. 

Argument fourth. At the supper directly afore the 
crucifixion, Jesus Christ had two bodies; one that was 
perceptible and plain to the senses of the apostles, and 
wherein his human soul was lodged, and that he had 
had from his birth, and another that he held in his 
hand, between his thumb and forefinger perhap ! The 
second body of his, he ate and drank ! that is, he ate 
and drank his own body ! and killed himself ! though 
remaining alive ! Either he killed himself, or he ate 
and drank both his body and his soul ! Indeed, accord- 
ing to papal orthodoxy, our Lord ate and drank his 
body, his soul, and his Divinity ! Moreover, our Saviour 
with his own hands, gave away himself, body, soul, and 
divinity, to every one of his disciples, to be eaten and 
drunk! and yet kept himself to himself! Oh con- 
temptible, monstrous, and abominable absurdity and 
profanity ! 

Argument fifth. If the bread and wine be really flesh 
and blood, the flesh and blood are often asunder, many 
feet or yards apart, one being on a plate, and the other 
in a cup ! Indeed the two parts of the live body, the 
flesh and blood, can be in two rooms, or in two build- 
ings, or even half a mile one from the other! The 
same living body can be partly here, and partly there ; 
the flesh and blood of one and same living man being, 



192 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

at one and same moment, one in St. Paul's and the 
other in Westminster Abbey ! The body can be divi- 
ded into two parts, the solid and the fluid, and the solid 
can be carried to Dublin, while the fluid is left in Lon- 
don, and yet the man continue alive and well! Seven 
Wonders of the world, hide your diminished heads ! 
for ye are wonders no longer ! 

Argument sixth. To avoid many and great objec- 
tions, papal folk affirm that, in offering Christ, the flesh 
is not broken or torn, and the blood is not spilled. 
They give the following reason : " There is whole and 
entire Christ under the element of bread, and under 
every particle of it ; and under the element of wine, 
and under every drop of it." According to my view of 
the reason they give, the body of Christ is not divided, 
broken, spilled by the dividing, breaking, spilling of the 
bread and wine, because every particle of one, and 
every drop of the other, either is or becomes separate- 
ly a whole and entire Christ ! Now on their affirmation 
and reason taken together, I proceed to make two 
comments. 

Comment 1st. There are, sooner or latter, as many 
whole Christs as there are particles of bread and drops 
of wine. A man of plain wit would deem two whole 
Christs, one for the bread and one for the wine, to be 
one too many. But he would be a mere bungler or ig- 
naro, if not a heretic ; for there is a whole and entire 
Christ for every particle of bread, and for every drop of 
wine ! Now supposing the bread to be divided into one 
thousand particles, and the wine into one thousand 
drops, we shall have not only one whole and entire 
Christ, but exactly 2000 ! And by more dividing and 
subdividing, we may have more Christs — ad infantum ! 
Papites may not like my inference about the plurality 
and multitude of Christs ; but how will they prove it 
illogical, or unfairly drawn 1 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 193 

Comment 2d. Is the plurality of Christs afore the 
division of the bread and wine, or only after 1 If afore, 
transubstantiation made not only one Christ, but perhap 
two thousand, or double, or treble the number, or even 
many more. If not afore, but only after, we have four 
wonders. 1st. A far smaller miracle was done by tran- 
substantiating, than is done by dividing ; the former 
having made but one Christ, and the latter making an 
innumerable number. 2d. Moreover, the bread and 
wine may be divided, broken, spilled by a mere heretic 
or iniidel, and with a mere jerk of the hand or blow 
of the foot ; and therefore a heretic or infidel, with a 
jerk or blow, may make a multitude of Christs ! 3d. 
The many or after-Christs are made, not from the bread 
and wine, but from the one original Christ. The bread 
and wine having been made, by transubstantiation, into 
one Christ, the many subsequent Christs cannot be 
made from them, but must be made from that Christ 
whereinto they had been made. 4th. Either the one 
primitive Christ was unmade or destroyed in the making 
of the many derivative ones, or he remains with them, 
he and they existing together or co-existing. Assuming 
the former, we have the destruction of Christ, or of a 
Christ ! Assuming the latter, we find that the one 
primal Christ, though continuing one, has become, by 
division, many, perhap one million, being at once one 
whole and entire Christ, and yet one million whole and 
entire Christs ! And the whole being equal to the parts, 
the one primitive Christ ought to be equal to the one 
million derivative ones ! 

Argument seventh. If the monster doctrine be true," 
every papal priest often works a miracle, namely, that 
of turning bread and wine into flesh and blood. Every 
papal priest, however ignorant and stupid, however 
wicked and immoral, however covered with crime, 
guilt, and infamy, however remote and far from holi- 

9 



194* POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

ness and God, every such man is a real miracle-monger, 
and may perform a miracle when and where he likes, 
having a kind of carte blanche from God in his pocket 
to make a Lord Jesus Christ ! 

Argument eighth. A bread and wine man, or rather 
a bread and wine something, not being born of a woman, 
is nonhuman, — not of woman born, not properly of hu- 
mankind. To be born of woman is a characteristic of 
the whole human family, excepting him who is imagined 
to be made from bread and wine ; therefore he is quite 
different from the whole human family, or is nonhuman. 
N. B. Adam and Eve were unavoidable exceptions to 
the rule of being born of woman. Being the first man 
and woman, the two human originals, the primal pair, 
they could not possibly come into the world in the ordi- 
nary way of natural birth ; therefore they came from 
the creative hand of Jehovah, directly and immediately. 

The primary couple excepted, whoever comes not 
from or through Eve or her female posterity, is to be 
deemed nonnatural and nonhuman, as coming in a way 
not necessary, not required by nature, and not accord- 
ing to the law of human propagation. 

Argument ninth. Papites, according to the nonsen- 
sical notion, the ridiculous whim of Transubstantiation, 
are man-eaters, cannibals, anthropophagi ; for they feed 
on human body, eat and drink human flesh and blood! 

Argument tenth. The Soul. Firstly. In the fore- 
going nine arguments we have examined transubstan- 
tiation in relation to the body of our Lord ; we have 
now to view the doctrine in relation to the soul. And 
'having found absurdity where we have gone, we may 
count upon finding it where we have to go. 



Folly upon folly piled 
Wisdom being thrown aside. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 195 

1st. According to argument first, there is the soul 
of our Lord, where our five senses can find nothing but 
bread and wine. 

2d. According to argument second, our Lord's one 
soul is at once in many places, in ten, or in a million, 
or in ten million ! or else he has at once many souls, 
ten, or a million, or ten million ! 

3d. According to argument third, our Lord's one 
soul has left his body millions or billions of times, and 
in many places at one time ! or else he has had mil- 
lions, or billions, or trillions of souls leaving his body ! 
Either the soul or souls have left the body, or it or 
they have been eaten and drunk with the body ! body 
and soul having been eaten and drunk together ! Jesus 
Christ having been eaten and drunk alive! If the soul 
leave the body, our Lord is killed or put to death, the 
soul being disjoined from the body, and driven away to 
heaven, or to another body of bread and wine. More- 
over, he is killed by his friends, his friends and follow- 
ers being his foes, and inflicting on him the pain of 
death, or murdering him ! Every priest is a kind of 
Pilate, and christian priesthood and people resemble 
the crucifying Jews and Romans ! If the soul leave not 
the body, they are eaten and drunk together ! our Lord 
being swallowed up alive ! 

4th. According to argument fourth, at the supper 
directly afore the crucifixion, Jesus Christ had two 
souls, or one soul in two bodies! 

5th. According to argument fifth, we shall have no 
little trouble in finding the soul. Where shall we seek 
it 1 Is the soul on the plate, with the bread or flesh % 
or is it in the cup, with the wine or blood \ or is it with 
neither, but half way between both ! Is the soul in St. 
Paul's, in Westminster Abbey, or at Temple Bar 1 in 
Dublin, in London, or swimming about in the inter- 
vening channel! Descartes thought to find the soul 



196 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

snugly sitting on the Pineal gland. Poor Descartes! 
he did not learn theology at Rome. 

6th. According to argument sixth, the souls of our 
Lord may be a very great multitude ! Remember, there 
is a soul of Christ with every body of him, body and 
soul being together. If, therefore, by dividing the bread 
and wine, a priest, or a heretic, or an infidel, or even a 
devil make 2000 particles and drops together, he makes 
or brings, or shows that the transubstantiater had made 
or brought 2000 souls of Christ ! And the more crumb- 
ling of bread, and the more spilling of wine, the more 
souls of our Lord ! ! 

7th. According to argument seventh, the papal priest- 
hood, however ignorant and vicious, may make the soul 
of our Lord go where and when they like. Having a 
kind of carte blanche from God in their pocket to make 
a Lord Jesus Christ ! they can draw his soul to any 
papal spot on the globe, in any day of the year, order- 
ing it here or there, now or then, having the command 
of its place and time. 

8th. According to argument eighth, the soul of our 
Lord, being joined to a nonhuman body, is a nonhuman 
soul. 

9th. According to argument ninth, the soul of our 
Lord is joined to a body that is under the power of man- 
eaters, cannibals, anthropophagi. 

Secondly. According to popery, our Lord does not 
die when eaten and drunk. Then he is eaten and drunk 
alive ! body and soul being eaten and drunk or swal- 
lowed together I body and soul going into the stomach 
and gastric juice ! If Jesus Christ do not die when 
taken by the communicant in the eucharist, the body 
and soul continue together and go together, the body 
being inseparably accompanied by the soul ; and the 
former being eaten and drunk, so is the latter, and there- 
fore so is the whole living man. Jesus Christ is eaten 



TRAN SUBSTANTIATION. 197 

and drunk alive, or in his whole and entire humanity, 
or body and soul ! 

Some may affirm that the body and soul of our Lord 
go not into our body, but into our soul. I will give two 
replies. 1st. Our Lord's body and soul go into our 
body or stomach. It is a matter of fact that the bread 
and wine, the apparent bread and wine, (the papally pre- 
tended real body of Christ,) go into the body or stomach 
of the communicant. This cannot be denied, without 
denying evidence and truth. Therefore the soul of 
Christ, inseparably accompanying his body, must go 
there too. 2nd. The other theory, namely, that the bo- 
dy and soul of our Lord go into our soul, is equally or 
even more absurd. How can his soul go into our soul] 
and even if it could, how, — in the name of common rea- 
son, how can his body go into our soul ] That a soul 
can enter a body, we know ; but that a body can enter a 
soul, is far, very far beyond and above our knowledge. 
The two theories are greatly absurd, namely, that our 
Lord^s body and soul go into our body, and that they 
go into our soul. Either way is folly. 

We have seen in argument eighth, and in the former 
part of the present argument, that a eucharistal Jesus 
Christ has a nonhuman body and a nonhuman soul. We 
see here that he does not die, but that he is eaten 
and drunk alive. Moreover, we are told that he does 
not suffer, that he is free from pain, being impassible. 
What more 1 

Argument eleventh. The Divinity. Firstly. I shall 
write little on this argument, the Divinity being too sa- 
cred and awful a theme to be brought forward in debate, 
without unavoidable necessity. " Thou shalt not take 
the name of the Lord thy God in vain." 

According to argument first, there is the Divinity of 
our Lord, where our five senses can find nothing but 
bread and wine. 



198 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

If the reader like, he may follow the order of argu- 
ment tenth or last, and learn how far the method ap- 
plied there to the soul is appliable here to the Divinity. 

Secondly. According to popery, our Lord does not 
die when eaten and drunk. Then he is eaten and drunk 
alive ! body, soul, and divinity being eaten and drunk or 
swallowed together ! body, soul, and divinity going into 
the stomach and gastric juice ! But how can our Lord 
whole and entire, his body, soul, and divinity, go into 
our body or stomach % Can his whole and entire Divi- 
nity be contained in our finite and little body % No. 

Some may affirm that the body, soul, and divinity of 
our Lord go not into our body, but into our soul. 1st. 
They go into our body or stomach. 2nd. That they go 
into our soul is equally or even more absurd. How can 
our Lord whole and entire, his body, soul and divinity, 
go into our soul 1 Can his whole and entire Divinity be 
contained in our finite and little soul 1 No. See argu- 
ment tenth or last. 

Thirdly. I exclaim, in passing, what an amazing ex- 
ample of folly and profanity do we find in the monster 
transubstantiation ! what a frightful compound of absur- 
dity and blasphemy ! 

•Argument twelfth. Firstly. The monster doctrine 
cannot be received, because it leads to the ruin of ra- 
tional Christianity, because it goes indirectly to under- 
mine and destroy the logical foundation of the Bible. 
For it is a weighty and awful truth, that more evidence 
exists against transubstantiation than for Christianity 5 
that stronger argument disproves the former than proves 
the latter. Therefore sooner than believe that enorm 
crudity, we are compelled, by reason and logic, to dis- 
believe the Bible. The grand, the leading argument for 
Christianity, is probably the argument from history ; and 
the grand, the leading argument against transubstantia- 
tion, is perhap the one derived from the opposition of 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 199 

the five senses. Now the historical argument is less 
powerful and conclusive than the other ; the testimony 
of historians being less satisfactory than the quintuple 
testimony of our senses, our five reporting friends. 
Christianity, I know, does not depend on the evidence 
of history alone, but has ample collateral proof; and 
transubstantiation is not opposed by the evidential power 
of the five senses exclusively, but meets the hostile ar- 
ray of many a concurrent argument. And the collateral 
proofs for the former are less convincing and effective 
than the concurrent arguments against the latter. There- 
fore the combined proof for the entire christian scheme 
is inferior to the combined proof against the huge papal 
fiction. Moreover, transubstantiation has no proper evi- 
dence of its own, has no real proof independently on 
Christianity ; but is strong in her sole and exclusive 
strength, depending wholly on her evidential power, 
and living no longer than she lives herself. If Chris- 
tianity fall and die, transubstantiation falls and dies with 
her. It follows that transubstantiation, having no evi- 
dence of its own, and being opposed by evidence greater 
than what upholds Christianity, brings her to destruc- 
tion, bowing her to the earth, and crushing her to death 
by its own dead weight. Thus it appears that, if the un- 
wise and unholy papal league between Christianity and 
transubstantiation be not dissolved ; if the latter be not 
disjoined from the former, and thrown aside as an evil 
thing; i[ we be driven to the bitter and dreadful alter- 
native either of admitting a doctrine that overturns rea- 
son and common sense, plucking them up by the root, or 
of rejecting Christianity in whole, as a system built on 
sand, and wrongly pretending to come from God ; we 
are bound to reject her. The doctrine being opposed by 
greater proof than what upholds the christian scheme, 
and relying wholly on the scheme for support, we are 
bound, logically bound rather to reject the christian 



200 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

scheme, than to admit the monster doctrine. The evi- 
dence for Christianity, though great, manifold, mighty, 
wonderful, is unable to countervail the greater evidence 
against transubstantiation ; but being the lighter, kicks 
the beam ; being the weaker, flies from the face of its 
opponent. So Homer makes Hector, the great, heroic, 
and noble defender of Troy, fly from the favored Achilles. 

The mighty fled, by greater might pursued. 

Iliad. 

Secondly. The kirk of Rome presumes to derive tran- 
substantiation from Christianity ; pretends to find the 
monster hid in a kind of cave formed of the literal 
meaning of some very few passages of the New Testa- 
ment. Thus, according to papal presumption and folly, 
Christianity and transubstantiation are related to each 
other as parent and child, mother and son. The son 
however reminds one of some deformed or misshapen 
monster who, in coming into the world, causes the death 
of his mother, and then dies himself through want of 
maternal nourishment and care. Transubstantiation is a 
worse son than Death. Death did nofmurder his mo- 
ther Sin, but only subjected her to rape ; whereas tran- 
substantiation actually murders his mother Christianity, 
though in murdering her, he murders himself, being 
guilty at once of matricide and suicide. Now matricide 
and suicide being worse than rape, the papal son is worse 
than the Miltonian. — Par. Lost, Book II. Transubstan- 
tiation christians are, like Samson, self-destroyers; for 
by adopting transubstantiation, they occasion the de- 
struction of Christianity, and therefore destroy them- 
selves as christians. They are not, however, like Sam- 
son, destroyers of their enemies. Samson, in killing 
himself, took care to kill the Philistines. But they, in 
killing their own christian character, do not kill their 
foes, namely, sin, the devil, sorrow and death \ on the 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 201 

contrary, they enable their four dire foes to live and 
prosper more actively and vigorously than afore. These 
people differ from the Hebrew Hercules (who possibly 
was the real and original Hercules) in another point, 
namely, in killing one of their best friends, — Reason. 
Christianity and Reason are sisters, allies, partners, and 
stand or fall together. Therefore transubstantiators, 
in bringing death to Christianity, take away life from 
Reason. Oh lunacy, insanity, madness! What Bedlam 
in the wide world contains madmen madder than the 
mad transubstantiationite 1 Oh papal errant, how great 
is your error! how amazing your credulity, how ridicu- 
lous your creed ! 

Argument thirteenth. Allowing transubstantiation, 
not only we cannot believe, but even they who lived 
1800 years ago, and were living witnesses of the mira- 
cles, could not fully believe Christianity, as they could 
not believe the miracles. The proof against transub- 
stantiation, is equal or superior to the proof for the 
miracles ; therefore if men can believe the former, they 
can disbelieve the latter ; if they can deem the former 
to be true, they can deem the latter to be false- Mira- 
cles appeal to the senses, and presuppose their certain- 
ty. If we believe the miracles, we must disbelieve 
transubstantiation ; if we believe it, we must disbe- 
lieve them. We cannot logically believe the two to- 
gether. With transubstantiation, no miracles ; and 
without miracles, where would be the main external 
evidence of Christianity \ Transubstantiation, by over- 
turning the testimony of sense, overturns the evidence 
of miracles for the truth of Christianity, and hereby 
deprives her of her grand external proof and prop. 

V Is it reasonable to imagine that God should make 
that a part of the christian religion, which shakes the 
main external evidence and confirmation of the whole 1 
I mean the miracles which were wrought by our Sa- 

9* 



202 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

viour and his apostles, the assurance whereof did at 
first depend upon the certainty of sense. For if the 
senses of those who say they saw them were deceived, 
then there might be no miracles wrought ; and conse- 
quently it may justly be doubted whether that kind of 
confirmation which God hath given to the christian re- 
ligion would be strong enough to prove it, supposing 
Transubstantiation to be a part of it : because every man 
hath as great evidence that Transubstantiation is false, as 
he hath that the christian religion is true. Suppose then 
Transubstantiation to be part of the christian doctrine, it 
must have the same confirmation as the whole, and that 
is miracles : but of all doctrines in the world, it is pe- 
culiarly incapable of being proved by a miracle. For if a 
miracle were wrought for the proof of it, the very same 
assurance which any man hath of the truth of the 
miracle, he hath of the falsehood of the doctrine, that 
is, the clear evidence of his senses. For that there 
is a miracle wrought to prove, " that what he sees in 
the sacrament is not bread .but the body of Christ," 
there is only the evidence of sense ; and there is the 
very same evidence to prove, " that what he sees in 
the sacrament is not the body of Christ, but bread." 
So that here would arise a new controversy, whether a 
man should rather believe his senses giving testimony 
against the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or bearing wit- 
ness to a miracle wrought to confirm that doctrine ; there 
being the very same evidence against the truth of the doc- 
trine which there is for the truth of the miracle ; and then 
the argument for Transubstantiation, and the objection 
against it, would just balance one another ; and con- 
sequently Transubstantiation is not to be proved by a 
miracle, because that would be to prove to a man by 
something that he sees, that he doth not see what he 
sees, And if there were no other evidence that Tran- 
substantiation is no part of the christian doctrine, this 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 203 

would be sufficient, that what proves the one, doth as 
much overthrow the other ; and that miracles which are 
certainly the best and highest external proof of Christi- 
anity, are the worst proof in the world of Transubstan- 
tiation, unless a man can renounce his senses at the 
same time that he relies upon them. For a man cannot 
believe a miracle without relying upon sense, nor Tran- 
substantiation without renouncing it. So that never 
were any two things so ill coupled together as the doc- 
trine of Christianity and that of Transubstantiation, 
because they draw several ways, and are ready to 
strangle one another : for the main evidence of the 
christian doctrine, which is miracles, is resolved into 
the certainty of sense, but this evidence is clear and 
point-blank against Transubstantiation." See Tillot- 
son. Sermon 26. 

Argument fourteenth. Even if Transubstantiation 
were true, it would be incapable of proof in any known 
way of proving, or in other words, it could not well 
be shown to be a truth. 

Firstly. The passages in the New Testament, brought 
to prove the doctrine, are known to be there by the 
sense of seeing only ; while the doctrine itself is oppo- 
sed by every sense. Supposing one sense to tell that 
a pro-transubstantiation passage is in the Bible ; all the 
five senses tell that the doctrine is untrue. Whether 
ought to carry the day, the one or the five 1 Undoubt- 
edly the five. 

Secondly. Indeed if we heard an apostle or even an 
ancrel affirm the doctrine to be true, we should know 
its truth by the sense of hearing only \ while we should 
know its falsity by all the five, five senses opposing one. 

Thirdly. A miracle would not prove the monster 
doctrine. The senses that would prove the miracle, 
would disprove the doctrine ; for if they be trustworthy, 
and the miracle true, the doctrine must be erroneous, 



204 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

opposing them. The certainty of sense being supposed, 
we believe the miracle ; but the certainty of sense 
being supposed; we disbelieve the doctrine. See argu- 
ment thirteenth or last. 

Argument fifteenth. We have seen enow of follies 
physical and metaphysical. We go on to notice a folly 
theological. For while the human nature of our Lord 
is doing upon earth the wonders mentioned in several 
of the foregoing arguments, it is according to Scrip- 
ture, not on earth at all, but really and truly in heaven, 
at the right hand of God. "Whom the heaven must 
receive until the times of restitution of all things. Acts, 
3 : 21. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up 
steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and 
Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Acts, 7:55. 
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, 
for ever sat down on the right hand of God." Heb. 10 : 12. 

Argument sixteenth. Transubstantiation is opposed 
to our Lord's own account of the nature and design of 
the eucharist. According to him, the best explainer of 
his own institution, it was ordained for the purpose of 
solemn commemoration. " This do in remembrance of 
me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this 
cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." Luke, 
22:19. 1 Cor. 11:24,25,26. From the foregoing, it 
appears that, in the eucharistal rite, we are to comme- 
morate our Lord, or remember him. But how com- 
memorate him, if he be then there 1 if he be then 
present whole and entire \ We commemorate an ab- 
sent person, but not a present one; therefore if Jesus 
Christ whole and entire, body, soul, and divinity, be 
present in the eucharist, commemoration has no room. 
Commmemorate our Lord ! How can we 1 We are 
with him; we handle him ; yea, we eat and drink him ! 
It is idle to talk of remembering our Lord, if he be 
wholly and entirely present, present corporally, present 



TRANS INSTANTIATION. 205 

mentally, and present divinely, or present in body, soul, 
and divinity. 

Argument seventeenth. I propound a query to the 
holders of transubstantiation. Are any of them ready 
and willing to go before the Royal Society in London, 
and there and then to eat and drink poisoned bread and 
wine, after having changed the bread and wine, accord- 
ing to their pretension, into flesh and blood % The bread 
and wine shall be carefully chosen by the Royal So- 
ciety, and be by them carefully, really, truly poisoned, 
mingled with poison, mixed with arsenic, Prussic acid, 
or some other real and effective poison, at the discre- 
tion of the chymical members. The poison might be 
sufficient to injure, to harm life ; but not enough to kill, 
to take life away. The poisoning operation being per- 
formed, let the transubstantiating marvel follow. Let 
any papal priest, the pope's nuncio, or the pope himself, 
go through the regular incantation and manipulation, 
and perform the whole affair of miracle-making, of 
turning a bit of bread and a drop of wine into the body 
of a man, into human flesh and blood ! It would be 
worth the pope's while to visit London for the purpose, 
in order to convince the British protestant. Now surely 
if transubstantiation would change the bread and wine, 
it would change the poison ; if it would leave behind 
no bready or farinaceous, and no winy or vinous, it 
would leave behind no poisonous or venene particle of 
matter. A real believer in the doctrine would believe 
that the poison had shared the fate of the bread and 
wine, that all three had gone one way, or had acquired a 
new nature. Are transubstantiationites sincere 1 This 
formal exhibition would try and prove their sincerity. 

Argument eighteenth. Even according to papal folk 
themselves, transubstantiation is conditional and uncer- 
tain, being built on the slippery word if, or on at least 
four conditions, any one, two, or three whereof, or even 



206 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

all four whereof may fail. We are told that there is 
consecration, and therefore transubstantiation, if there 
be four requisites, or if all be right in four things, — if 
there be no defect in the priestly character, no defect in 
the intention, no defect in the matter, no defect in the 
form. But if there be a defect in any one of the four,- — 
in the priestly character, or in the intention, or in the 
matter, or in the form, there is no consecration, and 
therefore no transubstantiation. A defect in priestly 
character, intention, matter, or form, will confessedly 
and avowedly render the consecration and transubstan- 
tiation null and void. Now no man or woman alive 
can tell that all the defects are avoided, or are absent ; 
therefore no one, laic or cleric, can tell or know that 
there are real consecration and real transubstantiation. 
1st. Perhap the officiating priest is not a real priest, 
has not the real priestly character. According to the 
doctrine of Priestal Intention, * nobody on earth can be 
certain that a supposed priest is a real one ; that he 
was really ordaineS, really confirmed, or really bap- 
tized, as we shall find when we come to that doc- 
trine. He might be ordained, confirmed, baptized by 
one who, through want of the right intention in a prior 
priest, was not a real priest, or who had not the right 
intention ; and therefore he might not be rightly and 
really ordained, confirmed, baptized. He might be or- 
dained, confirmed, baptized by a wrong man, or in a 
wrong manner, the man or the manner, or both, being 
defective ; and therefore his ordination, confirmation, 
baptism, might be defective and null. Moreover, he 
might not be rightly and really ordained on some other 
ground beside the want of right intention in another. 

* The very priestrulive and Jesuitical doctrine of Priestal Inten- 
tion here referred to. will be fully developed in a following section, 
the seventeenth. And the reader will find the reesoning here drawn 
therefrom to be not at all overwrought. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 207 

His ordination might be defective and null through an 
outward and visible defect or flaw therein, through a 
failure perceptible externally, and knowable by other 
men ; or through the similarly defective and null ordi- 
nation of his ordainer. He might be ordained in a wrong 
manner, or by a wrong man. 2nd. Perhap the priest, 
even if a real one, has not the right intention, does not 
intend to consecrate. 3rd. Perhap there is not the right 
or due matter. 4th. Perhap there is not the right or due 
form. Reader, here are four grounds for doubting. And 
from the doubt, or more than doubt, as to priestly cha- 
racter, intention, matter, or form, as to one or more, or 
all four, transubstantiation is doubtful even to the mind 
of the transubstantiator. 

Subsection III. Article 1. The only argument brought 
by the kirk of Rome to prove the horrible conceit of 
transubstantiation, is the presumed literal meaning of 
some few passages in the New Testament, where our 
Lord speaks of bread being his body, and of wine being 
his blood ; and of eating his flesh, and of drinking his 
blood. Transubstantiation stands on the pretended lite- 
ral meaning of perhap half a dozen passages, and has 
no other leg to stand upon. 

Article 2. Reply first. The following examples, how- 
ever, taken from a very large number, clearly prove 
that the literal meaning is not everywhere the real and 
true meaning of the inspired penmen, amply show that 
the verbal signification is not universally upheld by the 
analogy of Scripture. The following specimens, few 
selected from many, enable one to see that scriptural 
analogy is not wholly opposed to the figurative mean- 
ing, many passages being taken figuratively, typically, 
or metaphorically even by transubstantiators themselves. 

" This cup is the new testament in my blood." Luke, 
2:20. 1 Cor. 11:25. How is a cup a testament ? In 
John, 10, Christ calls himself the door; not some pieces 



o 



208 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

of wood nailed together. He calls himself the good 
shepherd ; not a man following a flock of sheep, with a 
crook in his hand, and a dog at his heel. In John, 14*, 
Christ calls himself the way y not a road for walking on 
formed of stone and gravel. He calls himself the truth ; 
not an assemblage of propositions. In John, 15, our 
Lord calls himself the vine, and his father the husband- 
man ; not a tree that bears grapes, and a man that 
keeps a vineyard, a vine-dresser or an agricultor. In 
Rev. 22:16, our Lord calls himself the morning star. 
In Matt. 16 : 18, Christ calls the apostle a stone or piece 
of rock. " Thou art Peter," that is, a stone or piece of 
rock. But will any papite take the words literally 1 — 
See Rev. 1 : 20, where the seven stars are called the 
angels, and the seven candlesticks the seven churches. 
See Matt. 13, where the figurative style is employed 
over and over. In Psalm 18, God is called a rock, for- 
tress, buckler, horn of salvation, high tower ; not a huge 
lump of stone, not a kind of Pendennis castle, not a de- 
fensive weapon buckled to the left arm, not a hard sub- 
stance that grew on the head of a quadruped, not a high 
building of stone, brick, and mortar. In Psalm 84, the 
Lord God is called a sun and shield ; not an astrono- 
mical luminary, the centre of a system of heavenly bo- 
dies ; not a mere composition of metal and bull-hides, 
to be held upon the arm in war. u Thy word is a lamp 
to my feet, and a light to my path." Ps. 119 : 105. 

Reply second. I go on to show that even transubstan- 
tiators do not keep to the literal meaning. The papite, 
as well as the protestant, is unable to take the eucha- 
ristal words literally, and is compelled to explain them 
in a figurative way. I quote the following, nearly and 
substantially, from the Encyclopedia Britannica, article 
Supper of the Lord. *' There is not, in the whole New 
Testament, a single word or a single phrase that, if in- 
terpreted literally, gives the slightest countenance to the 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 209 

wonderful doctrine of transubstantiation. The reader 
will remember that transubstantiation consists in a 
change of the matter, imperceptible substance, substratum 
of the bread and wine, into the matter, imperceptible sub- 
stance, substratum of our Lord's flesh and blood ; for 
even Eomanites allow that the form, appearance, sensi- 
ble qualities, properties of the bread and wine, remain, 
being, after consecration, either supported by the matter 
of Christ's flesh and blood, or hung upon nothing. But 
the phrase, This is my body, if taken in the literal sense, 
cannot possible denote the consequence of such a 
change as this ; for every person at all acquainted with 
the Greek language, especially the language of the 
Peripatetic school, knows that to o-upApw, my body, sig- 
nify not the matter or substratum of my body divested 
of its sensible qualities, but the body of me in its natu- 
ral state, consisting of matter and qualities, or matter 
and form united. Therefore, unless the sensible quali- 
ties as well as the matter of the bread and wine, give 
place to the sensible qualities as well as the matter of 
our Saviour's body and blood, and unless he appear 
glorified on the altar, as he appeared on the mount at 
his transfiguration, the words my body, must be taken 
figuratively. Had the apostles understood their Mas- 
ter's words in the sense in which they are understood 
by the church of Rome, they would have rendered 
them, not — This is my body, but — This is the matter of 
my body. In like manner, when John relates that Jesus 
said; ' Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, 
hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last 
day,' had he understood his adorable Master to speak 
of his flesh and blood in the eucharist, in the sense 
in which they are taught to be there by the church 
of Rome, he would have represented him as saying, 
T Whoso eateth the matter of my flesh, and drinketh the 
matter of my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise 
him ud at the last day.' John, 6 : 54." 



210 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

SECTION VIII. 

THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 

Subsection I. The sacrifice of the Mass, or Christ 
offered sacrificially for sin, appears now to claim our 
grave and careful attention. Papal folk pretend that, in 
the performing of the mass, the bread and wine are tran- 
substantiated or turned into the flesh and blood, the real 
body of our Lord ; and are then offered up to God as a 
true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the sin of 
quick and dead ! for people on earth, and souls in pur- 
gatory ! They pretend that the bread and wine are made 
into Christ's body ; and that his body, when made, is offer- 
ed sacrificially for the sin of the world ! The bread and 
wine being transubstantiated into a Jesus Christ or Host ! 
are offered as an atonement or expiatory sacrifice for 
sin ! Both operations are implied in the mass. What a 
monster twofold scheme ! N. B. The Host rightly means 
the consecrated bread or wafer and wine. Sometime it 
means, perhap less correctly, the consecrated bread or 
wafer alone. 

According to popery, the soul of our Lord, in the 
sacrifice of the mass, is present, being joined to the body, 
there being both body and souL Firstly. See section 
sixth or last, where I have given two reasons why the 
soul of our Lord, in the eucharist, is present to the body. 
The first reason holds good in the sacrifice of the mass, 
if not the second. Secondly. Here I will give two other 
reasons, both appliable to the mass sacrifice. 1st. The 
mere body, mere inanimate matter, cannot either die or 
suffer, being incapable either of death or of suffering, 
two things required in a real and proper sacrifice. 2nd. 
It could not be whole Christ offered up, if a part of him, 
and the main or better part, were wanting. What kind of 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 211 

Christ would that be, having a part only, and the in- 
ferior part, or the body ,• the superior and nobler part, 
or the soul, being absent 1 

According to popery, the Divinity of our Lord, in the 
sacrifice of the mass, is present, being joined to the 
body and soul, there being body, soul, and divinity. 

Having disproved transubstantiation, we go on to dis- 
prove the sacrifice of the mass. Having, in section last, 
considered and confuted the papal vagary in relation to 
the former doing, we proceed now to consider and con- 
fute their unfounded whim relating to the latter opera* 
tion. Having shown the first part to be unsound and un- 
tenable, we undertake to show the second part to be 
equally void of solidity, equally incredible, equally bad. 

In handling the latter point, the sacrifice of the mass, 
and in disproving the consummately irrational and un- 
biblical scheme, we will treat the thing in two ways, in- 
directly or mediately, and directly or immediately. 

Subsection II. Indirectly or mediately. Having shown 
transubstantiation to be erroneous, I have mediately and 
consequentially proved the sacrifice of the mass to be 
an error. Transubstantiation is implied and presupposed 
by the sacrifice of the mass. If transubstantiation were 
real, the sacrifice of the mass might be real or might 
be unreal ; but the former being unreal, the latter must 
be unreal too. Transubstantiation could be without the 
other, but the other cannot be without transubstantiation. 
In fine, transubstantiation being wrong, the sacrifice of 
the mass depending thereon cannot be right, but must 
be wrong too. 

Subsection III. Article 1. Directly or immediately. 
The papal doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, is both 
unreasonable and unscriptural. 

Article 2. Unreasonable. I will give two reasons in 
opposition to the doctrine, showing the sacrifice to be 
both inutile and incomplete. 



212 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

Reason first. Inutile. One sacrifice, that completed 
on the cross, having removed the obstacle from between 
man and God, there is no need of more. One sacrifice 
having opened up the way to the mercy of God, while 
he is just; to save the sinner, without sparing sin; to 
exert his darling attribute of love, without weakening 
the claim and authority of holiness, in the view of the 
rational creation ; another sacrifice is a mere superfluity, 
an idle display, a thing in vain. A second sacrifice is 
going about to do either what is already done, or what 
is not required to be done. Now how can the sacrifice 
of the mass be utile 1 Not at all. 

Papites affirm that the sacrifice of the cross, and that 
of the mass, are not two and different, but one and same. 
We however affirm, and shall prove that they are not 
one and same, but two and different, differing radically 
one from the other. I will give five reasons. 1st. A dif- 
ferent sacrifice or victim, another Christ. (See transub- 
stantiation, subsection II. argument third.) 2nd. A dif- 
ferent sacrificer, the sacrificer in the mass being not the 
Lord, but a mere man, a priest. 3rd. A different time. 
4th. A different place, unless the mass be performed on 
Calvary. 5th. A different manner, the mass sacrifice 
being undying, unsuffering, unbloody, and the like. 

Even if the sacrifice of the cross and that of the mass 
were one and same, it need not be offered more than 
once. Why offer up one sacrifice in two or many times, 
in two or many places, and in two modes 1 

I remark, in passing, that the sacrifice of the mass is 
not one and same, but many and different, every mass 
sacrifice being different from every other. I am not re- 
quired, however, to prove the point formally here, hav- 
ing merely to refer the reader to the last paragraph but 
one, where he will find the plan of proving laid down 
pretty fully, whereby he may prove for himself. 

Reason second. Incomplete. A real and proper sacri- 






THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 213 

fice implies the suffering and death of the victim ; and a 
realand proper sacrifice for men, implies the suffering and 
death of a real and proper man, of one who is of the seed 
of woman. But a eucharistal or bread-and-wine Christ, not 
being born of a woman, is not a real and proper man, or not 
fully human, having a nonhuman body and a nonhuman 
soul. Moreover, he does not die, being eaten and drunk 
alive. Moreover, he does not suffer, being impassible. 
(See Transubstantiation, subsection II. argument tenth.) 
Moreover, he cannot suffer, living here not long enough, 
being on earth not perhap half an hour. And neither suf- 
fering nor doing, he is neither passive nor active. Now, 
from the foregoing four things, namely, that a eucharis- 
tal Christ is not a real and proper man, that he dies not, 
that he suffers not, and that he does not, how can the 
sacrifice of the mass be complete 1 Not at all. 

Article 3. Unscriptural. Firstly. The silence of Scrip- 
ture. I have here to remark two things. Thing first. The 
ministers or preachers under the Gospel of christian dis- 
pensation are nowhere in Scripture called sacrijicers or 
sacrificing priests. They are called by many a name — 
overseer, elder, minister, preacher, shepherd, steward, 
and the like ; but are never called by the name sacrificer. 
Now if real and proper sacrifices be offered under the 
Gospel, it is utterly unaccountable, and quite a marvel, 
that the men who offer them, are nowhere, not even in 
a single passage, called sacrificers. Surely if the chris- 
tian ministry offered sacrifices, they would have at least 
one name once given them, indicating so important a 
part of their employ. If the papal pretended sacrifice 
were real and true, the christian minister would, in one 
passage at least, be named a sacrificer, or the like. See 
the Introduction, article III. 

Thing second. Scripture nowhere makes mention of 
the sacrifice of the mass, nowhere even alludes thereto. 
The word sacrifice, taken in a meaning vague and figura- 



214 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

tive, is employed in the New Testament, in Rom. 12 : 1 ; 
Phil. 4 : 18 ; Heb. 13 : 15, 16 ] and perhap a passage or 
two more. But taken in the strict, proper, literal mean- 
ing, the word sacrifice is nowhere used in relation to 
the christian scheme or the gospel kingdom, excepting 
the one great sacrifice of Christ completed on the cross. 
Any other real and proper sacrifice belonging to Chris- 
tianity is nowhere alluded to in the word of God. No 
real mention or allusion is found, in the New Testament 
or the Old, to the sacrifice of the mass. The account of 
ministerial duties under the Gospel economy contains 
nothing at all about sacrificing. Now if the mass sacri- 
fice were real and proper, if the papal pretension were 
true, the Bible undoubtedly would not be silent on the 
point, a point of so great weight. # 

Secondly. The language of Scripture. > This he 
did once, when he offered up himself. Heb. 7 : 27. By 
his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, 
having obtained eternal redemption for us. Christ is 
not entered into the holy places made with hands, 
which are the figures of the true ; but into heaven it- 
self, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Nor 
yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest 
entereth into the holy place every year with blood of 
others ; for then must he often have suffered since the 
foundation of the world : but now once in the end of 
the world, hath he appeared, to put away sin by the 
sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men 
once to die, but after this the judgment ; so Christ was 
once offered to bear the sins of many \ and unto them 
that look for him, shall he appear the second time with- 
out sin unto salvation. Heb. 9 : 12, 24-28. By the 

* See Fletcher's Lectures on the Principles and Institutions of the 
Roman Catholic Religion : a very able work, one written in the spirit 
of piety, and one that, though very far from wanting a recommen- 
dation from me, I do cordially recommend. 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 215 

which will we are sanctified through the offering of the 
body of Jesus Christ once for all. But this man, after 
he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down 
on the right hand of God. By one offering, he hath per- 
fected for ever them that are sanctified. Where remis- 
sion of sin is, there is no more offering for sin. There 
remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. Heb. 10 : 10, 12, 
14, 18, 26. Christ hath once suffered for sin, the just for 
the unjust, that he might bring us to God." 1 Pet. 3 : 18. 

In affirming a propitiatory sacrifice and remission, but 
denying the shedding oi blood \ in maintaining the mass 
sacrifice to be a real and proper one, but calling it un- 
bloody, papal folk contradict the apostle Paul. " With- 
out shedding of blood is no remission." Heb. 9 : 22. 
Without shedding the blood of the victim or sacrifice 
through whom the sin is remitted, is no remission. 
Any other victim is not to the point. 

Subsection IV. From the foregoing consideration of the 
character of the papal doctrine now under review, what 
opinion do you, reasonable and scriptural reader, enter- 
tain of the doctrine % Do you not deem it insulting to 
right reason, and decidedly opposed to the word of God 1 
Bightly does the kirk of England, in her 31st Article, 
term it a " blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit." 

Subsection V. The Sacrifice of the Mass, and the im- 
plied or presupposed doctrine of Transubstantiation, are 
maintained to magnify the pope and priesthood. How 
it must augment their pride, power, wealth, and the 
like, to work the eucharistal miracle, to be miracle- 
mongers and Christ-creators , to have, in every conse- 
crated bread and wine, Jesus Christ, body, soul, and di- 
vinity ! Some of the haughty hierarchs have declared, 
"Priests do create their Creator!"* Moreover, how it 

* A French Roman catholic writer says, — " This honour have the 
priests, that they create their Creator !" See Edgar's Variations of 
Popery, second edition, on the pope's supremacy — W. C. B. 



216 POPERT IN SPECIAL. 

must pamper their pride, power, plenty, and the like, 
to be, like the Jewish priesthood, sacrificing priests, 
and to be, in the view of the laity, able to offer up a 
sacrifice or atonement for the living and the dead, for 
people on earth, and souls in purgatory ! They protect 
their usurped dominion over the soul, body, and estate 
of the people, and save themselves from all popular 
control, by appearing to the people in the light of pro- 
tectors and saviours ! protecting them from punishment, 
and saving them from sin, and having the power, by 
offering or sacrificing a Christ, to obtain the favor of 
God, and open the gate of heaven ! 



SECTION IX. 



THE WORSHIP OF THE HOST. 



Subsection I. The host (or consecrated bread and 
wine) is really made the object of worship or adoration, 
papites falling down prostrate before it, as before the 
Divine Being ! To bread and wine, or to either of them 
separately, they give what they call Latvia, or the high- 
est or divine worship, that exclusively due to God ! 
endeavoring to justify their idolatrous conduct, by 
vainly pretending that the host is not bread and wine, 
but whole and entire Christ, body, soul, and divinity ! 

Subsection II. Indirectly or mediately. Having 
shown transubstantiation to be erroneous, I have me- 
diately and consequentially proved the worship of the 
host to be an error.* Transubstantiation being wrong, 

* If Transubstantiation be an error, then is it a falsehood to say 
that the wafer is li really and truly Christ's body and blood; soul 






THE WORSHIP OF THE HOST. 217 

the worship of the host, depending thereon, cannot be 
right, but must be wrong too. See section seventh or last. 

A defect in priestly character, intention, matter, or 
form, will confessedly and avowedly render the conse- 
cration and transubstantiation null and void, or hinder 
them from being real and true \ and consequently will, 
even according to papal view, make host-worship to be 
foul idolatry, the worship of mere bread and wine ! of 
mere inanimate matter ! of a breaden or a wine-made 
god! 

See the other seventeen arguments given in opposi- 
tion to the transubstantiation monster, arguments that I 
am not required to bring forward here, but whereto I 
desire to refer the reader. If the arguments be real or 
good, transubstantiation is unreal or bad ; and there- 
fore host-worship is no better than real and rank idola- 
try, than adoring as the Lord of all, a bit of bread and 
a drop of wine ! 

Subsection III. Directly or immediately. We find 
nothing at all like host worship or the worship of the 
elements, at the Supper directly afore the Crucifixion, 
by Christ or the apostles. None there gave divine wor- 
ship to the consecrated bread and wine. The worship 
of the host is quite unscriptural, having in the Bible 
neither command nor example. 

Papites, in worshipping the host, do not and cannot 
know that they worship the Lord. It appears that 
pope Adrian VI. judged that when people worship the 
host, they ought to say in their own mind, " / worship 
thee, if thou be Christ"* What a comment on host- 

and divinity. And if so, then the worship paid to it is not merely 
an error, it is idolatry of the worst kind. It is homage paid to a 
piece of inanimate matter. — W. C. B. 

* Even the best informed Roman Catholic can go no farther than 
to say this. No one can know whether the holy priest had the in- 
tention, really and truly to make the wafer a real Christ, soul and 

10 



218 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

worship ! " / worship thee, if thou be Christ. 11 Papites, 
" Ye worship ye know not what : we know what we 
worship." John, 4 : 22. 



SECTION X. 

HALF COMMUNION, OR NO CUP TO THE LAITY. 

Subsection I. This papal doctrine or practice required 
but few words. It is a papal innovation tending un- 
fairly to pull down the laity below the level of the 
clergy ; to squeeze the former to the ground, and to 
exalt the latter over them ; to make the many laicles 
nothing, and the few clericals everything. It would be 
hard to find a more glaring, palpable, arrogant, impu- 
dent plan on the part of the Roman clergy, to lower 
and degrade the laity, than the refusal of the Cup in 
the Eucharist. 

Subsection II. The tendency and aptitude of the de- 
nial of the cup to the laity, to degrade and dishonor 
them, and to elevate and dignify the clergy, are the 
grand recommendation of the denial to clerical favor, 
are the leading reason, the main cause why the cup has 
been denied. Holy Scripture and good reason are utter- 
ly opposed to withholding the cup ; not a single passage 

divinity. But if he had not the intention to do so, it is, in fact, 
not Christ. Hence to worship the host, not made a Christ by the 
intention, is to worship a piece of matter, instead of God ! But 
no one who takes the mass* can be certain that it is really consecra- 
ted, and made truly Christ. Hence, not one soul who takes the 
mass has any security, even in the least degree, that he is not guilty 
of the mortal sin of idolatry. Hence no mass-partakers can ever 
have the comfort of the true christian. They can never say, " I be- 
lieve, and I am sure !" — W. C. B. 



HALF-COMMUNION. 219 

of the New Testament really favoring the invidious and 
insolent distinction, and five directly opposing it, and 
good reason crying shame ! shame ! shame ! to the 
clergy !* In denying the cup to the laity, the kirk of 
Rome opposes not only Scripture and reason, but also 
the primitive kirk, the pure and primitive kirk confessed- 
ly having allowed both bread and wine to clergy and 
laity. Both kinds were allowed till the eleventh cen- 
tury. The clergy have no better reason for denying the 
wine, than for denying the bread, wine and bread being 
equally mentioned in Scripture, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, 
and Paul in 1 Cor. 10 and 11. Moreover, the clergy 
have no better reason for denying to the laity, than for 
denying to their own selves, laity and clergy being 
equally entitled and authorised. Moreover, the clergy 
have no better reason for denying to the laity, than the 
laity have for denying to the clergy, clerical denial to 
the laity being not less bad and wrongful than laical 
denial to the clergy. It follows that the priesthood, hav- 
ing no good ground, no good reason for their denial, deny 
the cup to the people, to lessen and degrade them, to 
pamper their own pride, to indulge their own presump- 
tion, and to confirm their own power. They deprive the 
people of the cup at the table of the Lord, in order to 
deprive them of liberty every where else ! they insult 
them as christians, that they may injure them as men ! 
See section second, subsection II. argument 8, about 
the councils of Constance and Trent. 

* And one of the Roman popes condemned the impious encroach- 
ment. It was pope Gelasius, who, in the year 492, pronounced, ex- 
cathedra, from his chair, that the abstraction of the cup, as some 
then proposed it, was an impious sacrilege I — See Corp. Juris Canon, 
Par. % Dist. 3. 



£20 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 



SECTION XL 



IDOLATRY. 



Subsection L The papal kirk appears liable to the 
charge of idolatry, in the following two ways : 1st. 
Worshipping or adoring glorified saints and angels. 
2nd. Worshipping God by an idol or image, by a cross 
and crucifix, or the like. It has not fallen so low as the 
natives of Greece, Rome, India, China, and the like ; it 
has not been guilty of an idolatry so foul and degrading 
as that whereby they are unfavorably known. But in a 
more limited, modified, or refined meaning of the term 
idolatry, the followers of that kirk are idolaters. They 
are not idolaters of the lower order, but are idolaters of 
the foregoing twofold species or kind. Papal idolaters, 
do hear and heed the following command given through 
Paul : " Flee from Idolatry:' 1 Cor. 10 : 14. 

The worship of the Host may be called idolatry, be- 
ing the worship of bread and wine, of a breaden and a 
wine-made god ! But the worship is given on the hol- 
low and weak presumption that the host is no longer 
bread and wine, but whole and entire Christ, body, soul, 
and divinity ! Papites pretend that they find in the wafer 
and cup, or in either of them, our redeeming Lord, man- 
hood and Godhead ! and that they adore him shining 
through the covering or envelope of superficial, formal, 
apparent bread and wine. Pretension puerile and pro- 
fane ! See Section VUL* 

* They worship the Host, because l - Christ is there in it, present 
in it and with it;" and "shines out through it I" If this be correct, 
then I ought to bow down, and worship any object where God is pre- 
sent and shines out from it. Now, a great mountain, a beautiful tree, 
a iovely human being may, on this same principle, be worshipped. 
God is there : God shines there ! — W. C. B. 



IDOLATRY. 221 

Subsection I. Article I. Worship, adoration, invoca- 
tion of a glorified saint and angel, may be of a twofold 
kind. 1st. Direct and immediate. 2nd. Indirect and 
mediate, by the medium of an idol or image, or of a 
relic, even relics being largely employed in the unholy 
work. The second is the worse, grosser, more debasing 
kind of the two ; and will sink its votary more deeply in 
moral and mental degradation, spreading a darker hue, 
a more dismal ruin over the originally noble nature of 
the soul. Both kinds are carried on by the kirk of Eome, 
the second kind more fully, may be, than the first. 

Under the dark and dreary cloud of popery, a very 
woful amount of worship is given to the creature. Til- 
lotson, in sermon 11, declared that for one Paternoster 
there are commonly said ten Ave Marias ! for one 
prayer made to Almighty God, ten are made to the Vir- 
gin Mary ! And Joseph Fletcher, in Lecture 6, re- 
marks that, by consulting papal books of devotion, one 
might imagine four persons to be in the Godhead, the 
Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, and the Virgin ! 

Article 2. A glorified saint and angel may be invo- 
ked under three characters. 1st. As an inferior god or 
secondary deity. 2d. As a mediator between man 
and God. 3rd. As a mediator between man and Jesus 
Christ. I will briefly review the three theories in the 
foregoing order. 

Article 3. As an inferior god or secondary deity, 
invocation of a glorified saint and angel, indirectly and 
mediately, or directly and immediately, being worship 
or adoration, is both unscriptural and unreasonable. 

Firstly. Unscriptural. " I am the Lord thy God ; 
thou shalt have no God but me. 55 See the first com- 
mandment. Exodus, 20. " Thou shalt worship the Lord 
thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." Matt. 4 : 10. 
Luke, 4 : 8. The apostles Paul and Barnabas would not 
be worshipped. Acts, 14: 14. The apostle John was 



222 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

not allowed to worship the angel or maybe glorified 
saint. " See thou do it not — worship God." Rev. 19 : 
10, and 22 : 9. The apostle Peter would not be worship- 
ed. Acts, 10 : 26. " Let no man beguile you of your 
reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of 
angels, intruding into those things t'hat he hath not 
seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind ; and not hold- 
ing the Head." Col. 2 : 18, 19. 

Secondly. Unreasonable. Reason 1st. A glorified 
saint and angel, though incomparably superior to a saint 
on earth, are not omniscient ; therefore they may not 
know when we pray to them. 1st. They are not 
omnipresent ; therefore they may not be near, they may 
be far, very far when we pray. And if one million 
people in one million places, pray in one moment, to 
one creature, the creature prayed to must be absent 
from all but one, and may be absent from all. When 
the Virgin Mary, Paul, Peter, John, Michael, Gabriel, 
and the like, are prayed to by us, they may be millions, 
billions, trillions of miles off; may be surrounding the 
throne of God in heaven, adoring Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost ; or may be at the farthest or remotest 
point of the whole creation, at creation's opposite ex- 
treme. How then can they hear our prayer 1 how can 
they know that we pray to them ? Being so far from 
them, we may as well pray to the wind as to them. As 
they have not omnipresence or ubiquity, there is pro- 
bably not one chance in a million that they hear our 
prayer ; and therefore our prayer is absurd, or is labor 
in vain. Our praying to creatures who cannot hear is an 
act of unchristian folly. 2d. Probably a glorified saint 
and angel are not heart-searching, soul-seeing, mind- 
conning ; therefore even if near us when w r e pray, they 
may not know our thought and prayer. Our prayer 
may be a mental one, and we are not certain that they 
know and understand our secret thought or private 



IDOLATRY. 223 

idea. Who can prove that a saint and angel read our 
heart, penetrate the interior of our mind, dive to the 
bottom of our soul, see and know our privy notion, no- 
tion hidden from outward view, and fully comprehend 
all our inner and retired feeling ^ No man. Conse- 
quently we must pray to them audibly, with vocal sound, 
in oral language, or we may not be heard by them even 
when they are near, even when close to our elbow. In 
praying to a saint and angel, we must not depend on 
mental prayer. " I the Lord search the heart. Jer. 17 : 
10. God only, knoweth the hearts of the children of 
men." 2 Chron. 6 : 30. 

Reason 2d. A glorified saint and angel are not omni- 
potent ; therefore they may not be able to grant what 
we pray for, even if they know that we pray. Indeed 
they have no power at all, none whatever, independently 
of Jehovah ; hence their power will be as inadequate as 
their knowledge, and peradventure much more. They 
must therefore go to God, and beg him to answer our 
prayer. Then why not go to God ourselves % If we 
must apply to the Lord in the end, indirectly, mediate- 
ly through a saint or angel, why not apply to him in 
the beginning, directly, immediately % 

Article 4. As a mediator between man and God, in- 
vocation of a glorified saint and angel, being a kind of 
worship or adoration, is both unscriptural and unreason- 
able, and therefore unpleasing to God. 

Firstly. Unscriptural. " No man cometh unto the 
Father, but by me. John, 14 : 6. There is one God, 
and one mediator between G"od and men, the man Christ 
Jesus." 1 Tim. 2 : 5. John was not allowed to worship 
the angel. Peter would not be worshipped. See Col. 
2 : 18. See paragraph in Article 3. 

Secondly. Unreasonable. Reason 1st. A glorified 
saint and angel are not omniscient. See Article 3, 
Reason 1st. 



224 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

Reason 2d. In relation to beings in glory, the sup- 
posed mediation is all on one side, they interceding 
for us, but we not for them. Now this inequality will 
perhap promote a feeling of inferiority and dependence 
on our part, and lead us to p^y them too great honor, 
honor amounting to very fearful idolatry, and to take 
them for beings somewhat divine. 

Reason 3d. One mediator being enough, why have 
more 1 1st. One is enough. Whence came the need 
of a mediator 1 A mediator was required to remove the 
obstacle to our salvation, arising from Divine justice, to 
maintain the honor of God's universal government, or 
to uphold the integrity and inviolability of the awful 
sanction supporting the Divine law. By mean of the 
mediator, God has magnified the law, and made it 
honorable $ Isa. 42 : 21. God can be just, and the 
justifier of them who believe in Jesus. Rom. 3 : 26 

The sinner's friend, but sin's eternal foe. 

Unknown. 

Die man, or justice must ; unless for him, 
Some other able and as willing pay 
The rigid satisfaction, death for death. 

Milton. 

Our Lord partaking of both divinity and humanity, is 
properly the mediator between God and man, the one 
mediator; and he has done all that the mediator was 
required to do. 2d. Now why have more 1 To have 
two, or two dozen, or two hundred, or two thousand 
mediators when one is enough, is in complete opposi- 
tion to the unity and simplicity observable in the doing 
of the Deity, of the great Lord of all, being opposite to 
analogy. If one will do, wherefore have two 1 One 
God, and one Mediator. 

Reason Uh. The multitude of mediators intercept our 
view of God. They stand in the way between us and 
the Deity \ and instead of making our coming to him 



IDOLATRY. 225 

more easy, make it more difficult, by distracting our 
thought, and dividing our attention among themselves. 
We have to regard not one, but maybe one hundred ; 
and are compelled to look to a crowd of feeble media- 
tors, instead of looking to Almighty God. 

Reason 5th. The theory of many mediators involves 
a slander or blasphemy on God. It impeaches his good- 
will and love, by representing him as stern, cruel, unre- 
lenting, unforgiving ; by exhibiting him as originally 
unwilling to do us good, and as agreeing to do it then 
only when importuned by a multitude of mediators, and 
tired out by a very great amount of intercession. 

Reason 6th. The theory involves a kind of slander or 
blasphemy on the Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ. It 
represents him as an incomplete, an imperfect media- 
tor; as if his mediation were inadequate, as if his inter- 
cession were not enough. 

Reason 1th. Saints and angels compared with Jesus 
Christ, are unimportant, insignificant, and empty. To join 
a few of them with him, in order to help him in his me- 
diatorial work, is like holding up a few candles in order 
to help the sun to enlighten the solar system. Now is 
it probable that beings so unequal in dignity and gran- 
dity, have been joined together as partners and coadju- 
tors in one and same office and work 1 Verily not. 

Article 5. Objection. A papite may object, that more 
mediators than Jesus Christ mediate more with God ; 
that the more interceders, the more interceding. I will 
give two replies. 1st. However that may be, we may 
not oppose Holy Writ and the preponderating evidence 
of reason, both whereof are hostile to the plan of invo- 
king any glorified saint or angel to mediate between 
man and God. 2d. God regards not the quantity, but 
the quality ; not the number, but the value. Great and 
small, many and few, are alike to the Infinite Jehovah. 
If the thing requested be proper to be given, our Se- 

10* 



226 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

deemer's only intercession is enough, and as good as 
more ; if the thing be improper, the intercession of 
thousands of saints and angels will be too little, and of 
no avail. No cruelty, no ill-will can be found in God. 
" God is love. God is love." 1 John, 4: 8, 16. More- 
over, no weak side, no favoritism, no partiality can be 
found with Jehovah. " Great and marvellous are thy 
works, Lord God Almighty ; just and true are thy 
ways, thou King of saints." Rev. 15. 

In the corrupted currents of this world, 
Offence's gilded hand may shove by Justice ; 
And oft 'tis seen, the wicked prize itself 
Buys out the law. But 'tis not so above. 

Shakspeare. 

Article 6. As a mediator between man and Jesus 
Christ, invocation of a glorified saint and angel is both 
unscriptural and unreasonable. 

Firstly. Unscriptural. We read nothing in Holy 
Scripture about the sub-mediation or the under-media- 
tors, and we do not find the scheme recognized and 
allowed by the holy inspired people therein mentioned. 
The plan of secondary mediators and mediation is not 
of Divine appointment, and did not originate with the 
Divine founder of Christianity. John was not allowed 
to worship the angel. Peter would not be worshipped. 
See Col. 2 : 18. 

Secondly. Unreasonable. Reason 1st. A glorified saint 
and angel are not omniscient. See Article 4, Reason 1st. 

Reason 2d. tr In relation to beings in glory, the sup- 
posed mediation is all on one side." See Article 4, 
Reason 2d. 

Reason 3d. The under-mediators are not required, 
have nothing properly to do, no peculiar duty to per- 
form ; but are an unprofitable or inutile set of beings, 
sitting down and looking at each other through want 
of other occupation. We can do better without their 



IDOLATRY. 227 

mediation than with it, and may go to Jesus Christ 
directly and immediately ; for between him and us we 
find no obstacle requiring to be removed by mean of a 
mediator. Now to have inferior mediators when none 
is really required, is in complete opposition to the unity 
and simplicity observable in the doing of the Deity, of 
the great Lord of all, being opposite to analogy. Why 
have an officer when you have no office to be filled] 

Reason teh. The under-mediators intercept our view 
of Jesus Christ, 'standing in the way between us and the 
Saviour. We have to regard not one, but maybe one 
hundred ; and are compelled to look to a crowd of 
saints and angels, instead of (as Paul commands) " look- 
ing unto Jesus." Heb. 12:2. 

Reason bth. The theory of under-mediators involves 
a slander of blasphemy on Jesus Christ. It impeaches 
his good-will and love, by representing him as a luke- 
warm and unfeeling kind of mediator; by exhibiting 
him as unkind and unwilling to benefit if not urged 
on by a set of under-mediators. Certainly this charac- 
ter of our blessed Lord is a false and abominable calum- 
ny, a monstrous defamation, a libel black as hell. Veri- 
ly, verily the Redeemer of mankind needs not the 
persuasion and intercession that the theory implies ; for 
he loves the world with a love stronger than life, more 
attractive than heaven, and durable like eternity. 

Reason 6tk. The plan destroys the unity, the beauti- 
ful simplicity, the ready practicability, the easy remem- 
berability of the Bible system ; and brings in their room 
plurality, complexity, difficulty, and confusion. Chris- 
tianity commands, M Go to God ; and go to Jesus Christ, 
as the way to God." Popery commands, " Go to God ; 
and go to Jesus Christ, as the way to God ; and go to 
the Virgin, to Peter, to Paul, to John, to Michael, to 
Gabriel, and to many more, as the way to Jesus Christ." 
Alas ! what a falling off is here ! Many poor, ignorant, 



228 POPERY IN SPECIAL, 

weak-minded people might be unable to remember the 
whole, might be puzzled to think of all the mediatorial 
names, might find it hard to recollect the threefold gra- 
dation, might forget to go step by step along the regu- 
lar progression, might often not know to whom to pray, 
and therefore might often not pray at all. But the poor, 
ignorant, weak-minded people can well carry in their 
memory, can easily recal to their mind, the two ideas, — 
God and Jesus Christ — one God and one Mediator. 

Reason 1th. The next effort in the way of improving 
Christianity, will perhap be the appointment of a set of 
tertiary mediators to mediate or intercede for one with 
the secundaries. We may hear of going to some real 
or pretended saint of the Roman calendar, to Cecilia, 
Ursula, Francis, and Dominic, to this, that, and t'other, 
as the way to the Virgin, Peter, Paul, and John. What 
then 1 where go to find the fourth or quartery set of me- 
diators, they who will carry one to the tertiaries 1 I opine 
that the quartaries are the pope and the priesthood for 
the time being. In fine, the mediatorial scheme when 
perfected according to papal ideas of perfection, will 
possibly contain the four degrees : Primary — Secon- 
daries— Tertiaries — Quartaries. Bible christian, you 
have not so learned Christ. Eph. 4 : 20. 

Article. 7. Objection. A papite may object that the 
theory of invoking saintly and angelical mediators be- 
tween man and God, or between man and Jesus Christ, 
or both, is analogal to the moral order of the present 
world, where men and women often act, by reciprocal 
entreaty, as mediators one for another. I will give 
six replies. 

1st. However men and women act here below, we 
may not oppose God's own word, his revealed will, and 
the preponderating weight of reason, both whereof are 
hostile to the plan of invoking any glorified saint or 
angel to mediate either between man and God, or be- 
tween man and Jesus Christ. 



IDOLATRY. 229 

2d. Omnipresence or ubiquity, requisite for media- 
tors in heaven, is not required for mediators on earth; 
for the latter are among and around us, meet us yearly, 
daily, and hourJy, and go along with us in the walk of 
life. The disadvantage is confined to mediation in 
heaven. 

3d. The imagined saintly and angelical mediation is 
all on one side, glorified saints and angels interceding 
for us, but we not for them. Now this inequality has 
very woful tendency and result, leading to very fearful 
idolatry, and bringing on effect of a melancholy kind. 
Papites do not only ask or entreat a glorified saint or 
angel to intercede for them, but pray to him to do so, 
praying on their knees with a kind of religious or irre- 
ligious homage, with a sort of worship or adoration. 
(See Article 4, reason 2d.) But human mediation on 
earth is mutual, A interceding for B, and B for A. And 
this reciprocation, or interchange of benefit, keeps all 
parties in mediatorial equality, and prevents the bad 
effect mentioned before. The disadvantage is confined 
to mediation in heaven. 

4th. Human mediation on earth by reciprocal re- 
quest may promote reciprocal love and mutual good 
acting among the imperfect inhabitants of our globe, 
hereby leading to great good and producing a happy 
result. But glorified saints and angels being perfect, 
require no plan of mediation, require not to be invoked 
in order to love us and to do us all the good they can. 
And what can be said about our love and good acting 
toward beings in heaven 1 The advantage is confined 
to mediation on earth. 

5th. Power to act as mediators, to intercede effec- 
tively for other people, may promote piety here below, 
may lead people to fear and love God; and therefore 
the power is divinely allowed here on earth; and there- 
fore human mediation may allowably and even bene- 



230 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

ficially be asked for upon earth, where holiness and sin 
contend for mastery, where virtue and vice wage war 
for dominion. But beings in heaven having piety in 
perfection, are in need of no like stimulant, require no 
similar incitement in relation to virtue and moral pu- 
rity; and therefore they probably are not, like people 
here below, employed in mediation ; and therefore they 
ought not to be invoked to mediate. The advantage is 
confined to mediation on earth. 

6th. We have Biblical example, authority, and com- 
mand for entreating men and women on earth to pray 
to God on our behalf; therefore the entreaty is agree- 
able to God, harmonizing with the declaration of his 
word, and hereby concurring with his will. 

Subsection III, Article I. Worship of God by an 
idol or image, by a cross and crucifix, or the like, can 
easily be shown to be strongly condemned in Holy 
Writ. I might quote passage after passage, and verse 
after verse to set forth the unscripturality of its cha- 
racter; but I rather like the readers to read the Bible 
for themselves, and to see with their own eyes how the 
worship is viewed by the wisdom of God. I will give 
five quotations. " Thou shalt not make unto thee any 
graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in 
heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is 
in the water under the earth : thou shalt not bow down 
thyself to them, nor serve them," &c. &c. &c. See the 
second commandment. Exod. 20. N. B. Papal folk com- 
monly either leave the second commandment altogether 
out of their prayer-books, catechisms, and the like, or 
put it in them partially and imperfectly ; therefore they 
tacitly condemn their own conduct, and virtually de- 
clare that their papal doings are in opposition to the 
second command of the decalogue. " Take ye there- 
fore good heed unto yourselves ; for ye saw no manner 
of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you 



IDOLATRY. 231 

in Horeb out of the midst of the fire : lest ye corrupt 
yourselves, and make you a graven image, the simili- 
tude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, &c. 
&c. Deut. 4 : 15, 16. Cursed be the man that maketh 
any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the 
Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and put- 
teth it in a secret place. Deut. 27 : 15. Forasmuch 
then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to 
think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or 
stone, graven by art and man's device. Acts, 17 : 29. Lit- 
tle children, keep yourselves from idols." 1 John, 5:21. 

Article 2. This manner of worshipping the Deity, 
namely, by an idol or image, clearly appears to be 
opposite to reason, right reason , and hereon I hope to 
convince the reader by the following threefold argument : 

1st. It tends to narrow our devotional duty, to limit 
our approach to our heavenly Father, to confine our 
prayer in place and time ; for we shall pray only there 
and then where and when we shall have the idol or 
image. But we may pray to God, The Good Being, in 
all place and in all time, everywhere and everywhen. 

2d. It tends to give one low and degrading thoughts 
of God, to make one regard him as bound to place and 
time, to make one view him as material. But we have 
to consider the Divinity, the Almighty, Jehovah, God, 
as an immaterial being, filling heaven and earth, past, 
present, and future, from and to all eternity ; existing 
in all expansion, and in all duration. " God is a spirit ; 
and they that worship him must worship him in spirit 
and in truth." John, 4> : 24. 

3d. It tends to make one take the idol or image for 
God, deem the idol and the Supreme Being one and 
same, confound the image, a block of wood or piece of 
stone, with the Deity, the incomprehensible Infinite, 
the Lord of life and glory. Maybe no dark idolater, no 
polytheistic heathen, no worshipper of wood and stone, 



232 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

who once held a creed of pure theism, began his very 
degrading and revolting progress of idolatry, by view- 
ing his idol or image as God. He began his miserable 
career by viewing the idol or image as God's repre- 
sentative, as Jehovah's deputy. In the course of time, 
however, he came to confound the representative with 
the Being represented, to mingle the deputy with the 
principal, to make no distinction between an inanimate 
creature and the Creator, and to worship the corporeal 
or pictorial representation of God, as God himself. The 
foul idolater begins by worshipping God through a ma- 
terial medium, and ends by erecting the material me- 
dium into a god. 

Article 3. A papite and a heathen too are ready with 
the following plausible and showy argument : We find 
it somewhat hard to worship God directly or immedi- 
ately, and find it comparatively easy to worship him by 
material mediums ; therefore we use them to aid our 
devotion, worshipping less in the immediate way, and 
more in the mediate. I will give three replies. 

1st. It is not very hard, not very difficult to worship 
God immediately, if people think and employ their 
reason. The less ignorant or the more knowing and 
intellectual we are, the more easy and agreeable we find 
immediate worship. Moreover, it is not easier to wor- 
ship mediately, than immediately ; with material me- 
diums, than without them. It is not so easy. It is not 
easier, and not so easy, according to reason, as we 
learn by the foregoing three arguments, and by others 
that might be given. As the rule, or as to the great 
majority of mankind, material mediums, as an idol or 
image, or the like, lead not to devotion, but to idolatry ; 
tending to make man not a rational saint, but a super- 
stitious dishonorer of the one God, and even a mise- 
rable polytheist. It is not easier, and not so easy, ac- 
cording to Scripture. If it were easier, it would be re- 



IDOLATRY. • 233 

commended or even commanded by the page of inspira- 
tion j whereas it is condemned hereby, and therefore is 
not so easy. God, who perfectly knows whereof we 
are made, and what we are, would undoubtedly require 
us to worship him in the mediate way, if that way were 
the easier and better, — the more effective for our growth 
in grace and for his own glory. Instead, however, of 
requiring the mediate kind of adoration, the Lord 
strongly forbids it, rejecting it throughout the Bible 
as an evil thing. 

2d. However the former part of the argument may 
be, even supposing it were somewhat hard, somewhat 
difficult to worship God immediately or without a ma- 
terial medium, we are not to disobey the obvious mean- 
ing of the Bible, and to contravene the preponderating 
dictate of reason, both whereof are hostile to the plan 
of worshipping God by an idol or image, or the like. 

3d. We have a created, a human medium of God's 
own appointing, the man Jesus Christ, through whom 
we are invited and commanded to draw near to God. 
Therefore they who cannot easily raise up their thought 
to an Infinite Spirit taken essentially, can easily behold 
him as veiled in the meek and placid glory of the 
Saviour, in the mild and gentle radiance of the incar- 
nate Word. 

In whose conspicuous count'nance, without cloud 
Made visible, th' almighty Father shines. 

Milton. 

Article 4. I will here mention two great reasons that 
existed for the incarnation of the second person of the 
Trinity. 

1st. To be our mediator, to atone for our sin, to re- 
concile us to Jehovah, to bring us back to holiness, and 
happiness, and heaven. r? God was in Christ, recon- 
ciling the world unto himself. 2 Cor. 5 : 19. Herein is 



234* POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and 
sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 1 John, 
4 : 10. God so loved the world, that he gave his only- 
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should 
not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not 
his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the 
world through him might be saved." John, 3 : 16, 17. 
2d. To afford man a divinely authorized human me- 
dium whereby to approach or appropinquate the Deity. 
" The glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor. 
4: 6. The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, 
full of grace and truth." John, 1 : 14. 



SECTION XII. 

MERIT. 



Subsection L So far as I understand the papal doc- 
trine of merit, as exhibited in the prosperous and palmy 
days of popery, or as grown to the full, I take it to im- 
ply the following three things : 

1st. That we may have merit enough for ourselves; 
may have moral merit enough to supply our own want ; 
may have merit as great as we require for private pur- 
pose, for self-security, for home consumption. 

2d. That we can perform works of supererogation; 
can do more than duty requires ; can be better than we 
are personally bound to be ; can superabound in merit ; 
can have more merit than we need for our ownselves ; 
and, therefore, that we can have merit to spare for other 
folk; can have a surplus for the good of our needy 
neighbor ; can have an overplus for the benefit of 
people who have too little merit of their own. 



MERIT. 235 

3d. That the surplus or overplus, the portion re- 
maining after self-supply, goes to a common stock, to a 
general fund, to a kind of merit-bank, whence men and 
women defective in merit, who are not meritorious 
enough, may draw whatever quantity of merit they re- 
quire ; and that the pope and the priesthood are the 
bankers, and hand out what amount of merit, to what 
persons, and on what terms they like, using their own 
discretion, being, like more than one other body, ac- 
countable to none but God. 

Subsedio?i II. As by idolatry papal folk dishonor 
God, so by merit they glorify man. They humble and 
degrade the Creator ; and exalt, pamper the pride of, 
and deify the creature. Verily, verily the like is not the 
way to love, serve, and glorify God ; nor the way truly 
to love, faithfully to serve, and really to benefit man- 
kind. To declare the merit doctrine altogether unscrip- 
tural and unreasonable, is nearly a superfluity ; to pro- 
claim it utterly repugnant to revelation and reason, is 
well nigh a work of supererogation. 

The papal doctrine of merit, even when not carried 
out to the full extent mentioned here, has naturally an 
unfavorable and fatal effect on personal piety or real 
religion, and on final salvation. The deceitful whim 
of human merit accords little with the humility of the 
Gospel and the revealed method of salvation, but it 
falls in exactly with the pride of the corrupt or unre- 
newed human heart. The deceitful whim will hide from 
men the deep moral evil of their heart, or the sinful 
condition of their soul ; will hinder them from knowing 
their full need of the Saviour, their extreme want of 
pardon through Christ, and of purity by the Spirit ; and 
will lead them to go before the judgment-seat, the 
great white throne, Rev. 20: 11. j the holy tribunal of 
heaven, more or less clad in the filthy rags of their own 
fancied merit, Isa 64* : 6 ) rather than wholly clothed 



236 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

in the pare and perfect robje of righteousness provided 
and offered by the San of God. 

Subsection III. It is quite impracticable, quite im- 
possible that we can have more moral merit than we 
want for ourselves, that we can have any moral merit 
to spare for another. 

1st. Generally or universally. Creatures are bound 
to practise all virtue, are under obligation to do every- 
thing that virtue requires, every thing demanded by the 
will of God, or by the Antecedent Fitness of Things. 
They are bound so to practise, are under obligation so 
to do, on their own account, for their own sake, in re- 
lation to their own good. If they practise not all vir- 
tue, in all time, and in all place ; if they perform not 
every jot, tittle, and iota morally required of them; 
they are vicious and immoral, are become morally bad, 
defective, and wanting in moral merit. Now as they 
are bound to be perfectly virtuous, as they are required 
to do everything morally right and proper, with refer- 
ence even to their own selves, in order to uphold their 
own good, they cannot thereby, by so being and by so 
doing, have greater moral merit than they need for 
themselves ; cannot thereby be more meritorious than 
they are obliged to be ; therefore they cannot thereby 
have any surplus of moral merit to give away to any 
other creature, cannot have enough and to spare. If 
they do what they are not bound to do, not bound per- 
sonally or privately, not bound in relation to their own 
well-being ; if they go out of the way to perform things 
that duty does not demand, does not demand in regard 
to their own character and fortune as rational and 
moral beings ; they do and perform what is not virtue, 
what has no moral merit, and what cannot make morally 
meritorious even themselves, far less any other crea- 
ture. Whatever is virtue, they are bound to do on their 
own account, or to maintain their own morality ; there- 



MERIT. 237 

fore they cannot thereby have any moral merit to spare 
for another. Whatever they are not bound to do on 
their own account, or to maintain their own morality, 
is not virtue, and cannot partake of moral merit. It is 
possible for creatures to be as good, virtuous, holy as 
they ought to be, or to have as great moral merit as 
they ought to have ; but it is impossible for them to be 
more good, more virtuous, more holy than they ought 
to be, or to have greater moral merit than they ought 
to have. All their goodness and virtue they need for 
themselves ; all their moral merit they require for 
their own, their private, their individual necessitude. 
How, therefore, is it possible that any mere creature can 
have any moral merit to bestow on any other creature 1 
Supposing a creature to act with perfect virtue or to 
live quite free from sin during every moment of its life, 
from the beginning to the end of its whole duration, it 
cannot possibly have one particle of moral merit more 
than it requires for itself, cannot possibly have one par- 
ticle thereof to hand over to any other beings 

2d. Specially or particularly. Men are .bound to 
love God, The Good Being, with all their heart, with 
all their soul, with all their mind, with all their strength ; 
to love their neighbor as themselves ; to promote the 
greatest good of all other creatures \ and to prosecute 
to the full their own happiness, temporal and eternal. 
Men are obliged and required to do all the triple thing 
on their own account, for their own sake, with a view 
to their own good. Now if men do the trinal duty, 
perform the threefold work completely and perfectly 
throughout their whole career, in every moment of 
their life, they do their whole duty, perform all they 
are bound to perform, and so have perfect virtue, are 
consummate, complete, unblamable in point of moral 
merit. But what then % Have they any moral merit 
more than they require for themselves % have they any 



238 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

overplus to convey to another 1 have they enough for 
their own selves, and a part for other men too 1 By no 
mean. All they do, they were bound to do for their 
own good 5 all their virtues and holy exertion they 
were obliged to make to maintain their own best inte- 
rest or welfare. If they do anything apart from loving 
and glorifying God, and apart from loving and benefit- 
ing others, and apart from loving and bettering their 
own selves, they do what is not virtue, what has no 
moral merit, what is not morality in any man whatever. 
It follows, that even if men were altogether free from 
sin, were perfect in virtue, were complete in morality, 
they could not have more moral merit than they w T ould 
need for themselves, could not have any one particle to 
spare for any other man. " When ye shall have done 
all those things that are commanded you, say, We are 
unprofitable servants ; we have done that which was our 
duty to do." Luke, 17 : 10. 

Subsection IV. We have to remember that men are 
sinners ; that all mankind have fallen from goodness and 
from God; that the whole world has become guilty and 
corrupt in the eye of Jehovah ; that sin and vice have 
triumphantly gone over the length and the breadth of 
our globe. Consequently, so far from having more 
moral merit than we want for ourselves, we have in- 
comparable less ; instead of having too great goodness 
and virtue, we have immeasurably too little ; and in- 
stead of having merit to spare to another, we have to 
depend on the Lord Jesus Christ to transfer his media- 
torial merit unto us, that we die not eternally. Now 
how sinful, preposterous, and vain to boast of human 
merit ! how wicked and absurd to pretend that our own 
merit is enough for our own selves ! how additionally 
wicked, how consummately absurd to presume that our 
minute and miserable merit, our contemptible virtue, 
our despicable moral worth, will suffice not only for our- 



PURGATORY, AND PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 239 

selves, but even wholly or partly for other people ! 
Oh Popery ! Popery ! Abandon your peculiar and pes- 
tilent doctrine of merit, magnify God, lessen man, exalt 
the Saviour, humble the sinner, and return to Scriptural 
truth, to the veritable doctrine of God's own veritable 
word. Then, Popery, you will appear more nearly meri- 
torious to all men and women, truly scriptural and 
reasonable. f< Can a man be profitable unto God, as he 
that is wise may be profitable unto himself 1 If thou be 
righteous, what givest thou him 1 or what receiveth he 
of thine hand I" Job, 22 : 2, and 35 : 7. 



SECTION XIII. 

PURGATORY, AND PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 

Subsection I. The papal conceit of purgatory, a place 
whither many souls in a state of grace, departed in 
Christ, dead in the Lord, go, on leaving the body, in 
order to have a moral purgation, to be freed from their 
sinful impurity, to be fully prepared for heaven, tends 
to maintain the unscriptural and dangerous distinction 
between venial and mortal sin, and tends to lower and 
degrade the atonement of our Lord, and tends to limit 
and narrow the purifying operation of the Holy Ghost, 
and tends to encourage and aid sin and vice, and tends 
to promote priestrule, to bring power and importance 
to the pope and the priesthood. Moreover, we may 
feel quite sure that the tendency and aptitude of the 
doctrine to promote priestrule, to magnify and glorify 
the priesthood, are a leading reason, the leading reason, 
the main motive of the papal kirk for upholding the 



240 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

doctrine, a doctrine so delicious to the Roman priestly- 
palate. Purgatory is protected to protect priestrule.* 

Subsection II. The notion of purgatory tends to 
maintain the distinction between venial and mortal sin, 
a distinction unscriptural and dangerous. 

Firstly. The notion tends to maintain the distinc- 
tion. According to my view of the purgatorial plan, 
souls are sent to purgatory to be purged and purified 
from two things. 1st. Venial sin. 2d. The remainder 
of mortal sin, or the part left unforgiven by the Lord. 
As to the former, or venial sin, the removal of it forms 
so great a part of the work fabled to be done in purga- 
tory, that its difference from mortal sin is important to 
be upheld by the rigid purgatorian. Without venial 
sin, papal folk would hardly know what to do with 
purgatory. 

Secondly. The distinction is unscriptural and dan- 
gerous. 1st. The distinction between venial and mortal 
sin, is unscriptural. This view we shall continue to hold 
till Scripture be pointed out clearly and amply making 
or showing the distinction. Where in the Bible do we 
read of venial and mortal sin 1 No where. 2d. The dis- 
tinction between venial and mortal sin is dangerous. 
Men will be apt to imagine nearly all their sins to be 
venial, or nearly none to be mortal ; not only of small 
ones, but even of great. Moreover, men will be liable 
to fancy that they have no great sins 5 for having 
deemed them venial, they will quickly deem them small. 
Moreover, men will be too prone to go on from judging 
their sins to be venial and small, to judge them to be 
few, and so will get to think that they have but few sins 
in the whole ; for if great can be squeezed into small, 
many can be squeezed into few. Venial — Small — Few. 

* The word Priestrule is formed of priest and rule, and means the 
rule or domineering of the priesthood. Moreover, the words priest- 
rulive, priestrulian, and the like, come from priestrule. 



PtrRGATORY, AND PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 241 

Behold the purgatorian's estimate of sin ! To him sin 
will no longer appear exceeding sinful. Rom. 7:13. 

Subsection HI. The notion of purgatory tends to lower 
and degrade the atonement of our Lord, and to make 
his satisfaction for sin appear unsatisfactory. According 
to the purgatory whim, our Lord is an incomplete or 
partial Saviour, saving merely in part ; for he works 
out one part of our salvation, a third, a half, two-thirds, 
or less or more, and we ourselves by undergoing purga- 
torial pain, or the pope and priesthood by delivering us 
from purgatory, work out the other part. Christ has 
not done enough, having left a great deal for purgatory 
to do. He merely began the work of redemption ; the 
sinner himself, or the priest for him, the sinner by suf- 
fering, or the priest by succoring, ending the work, or 
making it complete and available. Purgatory doctrine 
puts merit in the creature, the sinner largely saving 
himself by being in purgatory, or the priest largely 
saving him by bringing him hereout. And by putting 
merit in man, and making him greatly help the Saviour 
in saving the soul, the purgatory whim throws Christ 
into the shade, makes him appear an imperfect re- 
deemer, and leads man to depend not wholly on Di- 
vine mercy, but partly and greatly on human merit and 
priestly power. Christ does much, the sinner does 
more ! the priest does most of all ! ! Now according to 
the Bible, Jesus Christ is the only Saviour 5 but accord- 
ing to purgatory, he is not the only one : therefore pur- 
gatory is wrong and unreal, or a mere priestly fable. 

" By him (Christ) all that believe are justified from 
all things. Acts, 13 : 39. Ye are complete in him. Col. 
2 : 10. He is able to save them to the uttermost, that 
come unto God by him. Heb. 7 : 25. The blood of Jesus 
Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." 1 John, 1 : 7. 

Subsection IV. The notion of purgatory tends to 
limit and narrow the purifying operation of the Holy 

11 



242 popery m SPECIAL. 

Ghost, and to make him a partial purifier, purifying the 
sinner in part only. Who imagine that the Spirit acts 
in the way of sanctification in purgatory 1 that he sanc- 
tifies the souls when they are confined there, and pre- 
pares them for the sanctity and purity of heaven 1 
Surely none so imagine. We read in Scripture that the 
Holy Spirit makes holy or purifies people on earth, but 
read there not a word about his purifying work in pur- 
gatory. The Holy Ghost not purifying the souls con- 
fined there, who or what does purify them 1 Are they 
purified by purgatorial pain, or by their own power, or 
by the power of the priesthood in granting an in- 
dulgence or indulging, or by another thing 1 Alas ! 
What bad purifiers ! But in whatever way they become 
purified or sanctified, they become so not by the direct 
and immediate acting of the Holy Ghost ; and therefore 
he must appear, in relation to them, to be no more than 
a partial purifier or special sanctifier, acting not wholly 
or generally. In relation to purgatory, we find suffer- 
ing, or the sinner, or the priesthood, or another thing 
interfering with what Scripture declares to be the pe- 
culiar operation of the Holy Ghost, and doing his pro- 
per work, by more or less imparting the new nature 
and the the holy heart. In fine, according to the Bible, 
the Spirit is the only sanctifier ) but according to purga- 
tory, he is not the only one : therefore purgatory is 
wrong and unreal, or a mere priestly fable. 

Subsection V, Article L The scheme of purgatory 
tends to encourage and aid sin and immorality. And 
the kirk of Kome, by maintaining the doctrine of pur- 
gatory, gives encouragement and aid to sin, vice, and 
crime. 

Firstly, If people are made to believe that a place 
will take them after death, where they may be purged 
from their sinful propensity and immoral habit, will 
they be very careful to overcome the propensity and 



PURGATORY, AND PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 243 

habit during life 1 No. If people are led to think that, 
maugre a sinful and immoral career on earth, they may 
be made meet for heaven in purgatory, will they not be 
tempted, and effectively tempted to put off what they 
wrongly deem an evil day, the day of leaving their sin 
and immorality, to delay repentance and conversion to 
the last hour, and to resolve on becoming virtuous and 
holy after death, rather than afore 1 They will. If 
people are taught that they may choose between taking 
up the cross, crucifying their evil doing, and following 
the Saviour, while they are on earth, and suffering 
somewhat, more or less, in purgatory, will they not 
choose the latter, and instead of being renewed by the 
Holy Ghost, prefer being purified by purgatorial pain, 
pain that, they flatter themselves, will not be very pain- 
ful 1 They will. Will not men and women cleave to 
the flesh, the world, and the devil, to anything rather 
than the holy God, if they may yet get to heaven after 
undergoing a kind of penance in a place called Purga- 
tory 5 a penance that, owing to the intervention of the 
pope and the priesthood, they hope will be neither very 
long nor very severe 1 They will so cleave. The pre- 
sent, continual, and strong attraction of sin and vice, 
will overcome the fear of the future, the absent, the 
dimly seen, the vague and indefinite, the somewhat un- 
certain and doubtful evil of purgatory fire. 

Secondly. With the great majority of people who 
believe in purgatory, hell is out of the question, and 
the fear of hell is hurled far away behind the back ; for 
excepting the uncommonly sinful, the enormly wicked 
and immoral, the prodigiously and outrageously crimi- 
nal, purgatory people turn away their eyes from hell, 
and &x them on purgatory. As to moral power and 
holy restraining effect on the doing and behavior of 
the main body of purgatory people, purgatory deplaces 
hell, pushing it out of the thought, occupying its room, 



244 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

and usurping its employ. Now hell differs from purga- 
tory in two main points. 1st. Hell is a far more horri- 
ble and fearful state and place. 2d. The evidence for 
hell is clear, conclusive, and convincing ; while the 
evidence for purgatory is nothing, is no evidence at 
all, the mere unsupported affirmation of the priesthood. 
Therefore even the ignorant papal laity do not, will 
not, cannot believe in the reality of purgatory with 
anything like the degree of strength and energy where- 
with they believe in the reality of hell. From the fore- 
going two main points of difference, it follows that the 
fear of hell has far greater influence than the fear of 
purgatory ; and that if the power of hell in preventing 
sin and vice, be lamentably small, the power of purga- 
tory therein is incomparably smaller. If the love of 
sin be hardly subduable by the fear of hell, how can it 
be subdued by the fear of hell's puny rival ? The sin- 
subduing power of hell is great, extremely great viewed 
as relative, viewed in relation to that of purgatory $ 
therefore the papal substitution of purgatory for hell is 
a very great gain to sin, vice, and crime. 

Article 2. What is the absolute sin-subduing power 
of hell! Hell — so horrible and fearful, and so credible 
and indubitable, even hell has little practical operation 
absolutely on the life and conduct of very many who 
firmly and fully believe therein, and keep it in their 
view; of very many from whose mind it is not driven 
by the shallow and unfounded whim of purgatory. And 
as hell can do no more, what can purgatory do, helPs 
feeble substitute 1 The fear of hell being found little 
enough, and even too little to bind and restringe the 
bad inclination of the great majority of those who have 
not purgatorial pain in their creed or in their view, 
what can be said of the far smaller, far less influential 
fear of purgatory \ The fear of hell does too little, the 
fear of purgatory does far less. 



PURGATORY, AND PRAYING FOR THE DEAD 245 

Subsection VI. The scheme of purgatory tends to 
promote priestrule. Who can keep a soul out of pur- 
gatory 1 The pope and the priesthood ! Who can make 
the purgatorial proceeding of short duration 1 The 
pope and the priesthood ! Who can make purgatorial 
pains to be few and small, the purifying penance to be 
trifling and easy — to be nothing more than mildly put- 
ting the soul to right by a kind of gentle purgative 1 
The pope and the priesthood ! The people, the laity 
are taught that the papal priesthood have power over 
purgatory ; power to deliver hereto, and i;o deliver 
herefrom, whom they will ; power to make the time 
long or short, and to make the pain great or small, as 
they like. It follows that the people must believe what 
the priesthood affirm, and do what the priesthood com- 
mand, and pay what the priesthood require, or wo be to 
them in purgatory ! The clergy hold purgatory in ter- 
rorem over the head of the laity to alarm and frighten, 
in order hereby to rule and enslave them, to turn them 
how and where they like, to bend their body and soul 
to the imperious clerical will, and to render them meanly 
subservient to the power, the profit, the pleasure of the 
priesthood. That the people may not go to purgatory, 
or may get on well herein, and get well hereout, they 
enable the priesthood to get on well in the present 
world ; that their poor laic soul may not bake, or boil, 
or broil on hot purgatorial fire, and during many a long 
year, they allow the pope and the priesthood to cram 
themselves with dainty loaves and fishes, to fatten on 
the peculiar good things of time and sense^ and to 
revel in the secular advantage of a world that they pro- 
fess to trample under foot through their extreme self- 
mortification ! Can a plan be devised more likely to 
render the priesthood everything, and the people no- 
thing, than the purgatorial one \ Purgatory is a fable, 
I know; but it is a "cunningly devised fable." 2 Pet. 



246 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

1 : 16. The result of the plan has corresponded to the 
tendency ; for by mean of getting purgatory for the 
people, the priesthood have gotten earth for themselves. 
The peculiar merit of the purgatory plan in the eye of 
the papal priesthood may be inferred from the follow- 
ing phrase of their own : " When the money jingles in 
the chest, the soul ascends to heaven." 

Subsection VII. The tendency and aptitude of the 
scheme of purgatory to promote priestrule, are the 
main, the grand recommendation of the scheme to the 
favor and support of the pope and the priesthood. Ac- 
cording to the common principle of human nature, as 
the purgatory plan will greatly promote and augment 
the temporal advantage and pleasure of the priesthood, 
it does greatly incline and allure the priesthood to help 
and uphold it with all their might. Purgatory favors 
the priesthood, therefore the priesthood favor purga- 
tory. In beholding the pope and the priesthood argu- 
ing for purgatory, Shakspeare would say, n that the 
wish is father to the thought." They desire it to be 
true, and then try to prove it so. Their defence and 
ready help evidently originate in low and sordid inte- 
rest. Thus it appears that the priestrulive character, and 
aptitude of the papal purgatory plan, do naturally form 
a leading reason, a main cause why it is upheld by the 
kirk of Rome. And as I do not find for the plan any 
solid ground either in the Bible or in good sense, I in- 
fer that its priestrulive character and aptitude form the 
leading reason, the main cause why it is upheld. Sup- 
posing the papal priesthood to abjure priestrule, to cast 
far away all priestal domination, to give up usurping 
the right of the people, they would very soon throw 
their purgatory overboard, and let it sink into a place 
worse than itself. Purgatory is protected to protect 
priestrule, — and the pope is the leading priestrulian. 

Subsection VIII. There being no such place or even 



PURGATORY, AND PRAYING FOR THE DEAD. 24-7 

state as purgatory, praying God to release a human 
soul from purgatorial pain is mocking our Maker, fling- 
ing insult in the face of Jehovah, and indeed blasphem- 
ing ! No such place or state as purgatory existing, 
praying God to deliver herefrom is praying him to de- 
liver from nowhere, from nothing, — is entreating him to 
do what is not to be done. The prayer and entreaty 
originate in folly or in impiety, and terminate in vanity 
or in something worse. Instead of irrationally asking 
the Lord to transfer from purgatory to heaven, depart- 
ed souls who are already either in heaven or in hell, 
let us faithfully ask him to prepare ourselves for his 
heavenly beatitude, to justify us through Jesus Christ, 
to sanctify us by the Holy Ghost, and hereby to hinder 
us from descending to everlasting night, to the gloomy 
world of wo ! 

Subsection IX. Praying for the dead, for the souls 
pretendedly confined in purgatory, is the offspring of 
priestly cunning, a mere invention of the priesthood, 
intended to promote their professional power and the 
like, to make them more important in the eyes of the 
people, and to forward their plans of carnal good. 
Praying for the dead is an unscriptural thing, having 
not a shadow of authority in any part of the word of 
God. " The dead know not anything, neither have 
they any more a reward. Neither have they any more 
a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the 
sun." Eccles. 9 : 5, 6. 



248 POPERY IN SFECIAL. 

SECTION XIV. 

PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 

Subsection I. This doctrine appears to imply an 
ample amount of ignorance, presumption, pride, and 
blasphemy. What does the doctrine mean when fully 
carried out, when taken in its whole extent, in its 
length, breadth, and depth 1 It means that the papal 
priesthood may absolve from sin whom they like ; may 
pardon the transgression, forgive the iniquity, remove 
the condemnation of any number of people, or leave it 
undone, as they may happen to prefer ; may admit men 
and woman to heaven, to eternal joy, or retain them 
under the load of guilt, under the curse of the broken 
law, under the dreadful anger of Jehovah, according to 
their own priestly discretion ! It means that the papal 
priesthood, for any reason that they may deem adequate, 
may excommunicate any number of people to any de- 
gree they like, even from glory and God, even to 
everlasting wo, shutting them up in the never-ending 
misery of hell ! It means that the pope and the priest- 
hood keep and control the two great states of the 
future world ; that they hold the keys of heaven and 
hell, opening and shutting to whom they will, when 
they will, and how they will ; that they are the arbiters 
or deciders of salvation and damnation, saving all whom 
they choose to save, and damning all whom they choose 
to damn ! 

Who are the men that claim the awful and fearful 
power, the power to save and damn 1 What are they ! 
The pope and the priesthood, are they a company of 
angels living on earth in the character of God's pleni- 
potentiaries, of our Redeemer's viceroys, of secondary 
gods % Or are they people inspired, people extraordi- 



BRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 249 

narily, miraculously, prophetically guided by the Holy 
Ghost ; people directly and immediately superintended 
and controlled by the Divine Being 1 Or are they men 
full of knowledge, and full of virtue ; men perfect in 
wisdom, and perfect in piety ; men in whom intellect 
and holiness appear to be embodied, and to be living 
visibly, and acting directly ,• men who stand at the top 
of humanity, being saints in perfection, and fully ripe 
for the joy and glory of heaven \ Alas ! In general, 
in relation to the main body, to the majority, the pope 
and the priesthood have been men of quite another 
kind, men as different from the foregoing as darkness 
is from light, sin from holiness, evil from good. Many, 
very many of them have been men without holiness, 
and with no great intellect ; men of no piety, and of 
little wisdom 5 men with virtue below par, and with 
knowledge not above $ vicious and ignorant, wicked and 
weak, having crime and folly. Many a pope, and many, 
very many a priest have been utterly void of holiness 
or piety ; and been full of irreiigion, immorality, guilt, 
and corruption ; and been grovelling in ignorance or 
mental night. In fine, a great majority of the papal 
priesthood have had small sense, and smaller sanctity, 
or no sanctity at a*ll. A great majority have been 
wholly destitute and empty of genuine godliness, per- 
sonal piety, real religion, converting grace ; and a great 
minority have abounded in sin, run riot in immorality, 
and taken their fill of crime, wallowing in wickedness, 
and actively serving the flesh, the world, and the devil.* 
Bernard wrote the following pithy period : * The bish- 
ops, to whom the church of God is now committed, are 
not teachers, but seducers ; not pastors, but imposters ; 
not prelates, but Pilates." An odd character (given by 
a leading papal writer) of the ecclesiastical head of the 

* See the character of the popes, section II } argument first. 
11* 



250 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

papal kirk. Seducers — Impostors — Pilates ! And Brid- 
get, I think, called the pope and priesthood murderers of 
souls; and affirmed that they turned the ten command- 
ments into two words, Da Pecuniam, Give money ! 

Verily, verily we are bound to inquire if the awfu. 
and fearful power claimed by the papal priesthood be 
claimed on solid and sufficient ground 5 we are inte- 
rested in knowing what authority they have either from 
revelation or from reason. We have a right to see and 
examine their credential, to make them produce their 
voucher, and to require a full statement of the argument 
and proof they pretend to have for their priestly demand. 
We are concerned to know by whom they are sent, and 
what they are sent to do. We may claim to be con- 
vinced that they have God's plenipotent commission, 
afore we regard them as armed with God's power, and 
sitting on the judgment-seat of the world, determining 
the future doom, the everlasting weal or wo of millions 
of immortal beings ! 

Subsection II. Article I. Priestal Absolution. I re- 
member to have read or heard of a little girl who went 
to a priest to be absolved, when the following dialogue 
occurred. As I quote from memory, I undertake only 
to be substantially correct, or correct in the main. 

G. " Good Father, can you absolve me from my sin % 
P. Yes. G. How do you know that you can 1 P. The 
Holy Church and the Bible tell me so. G. What must 
you do to absolve me 1 P. Read over to you the proper 
passages of Scripture. G. What passages are they 1 
P. This, and that, and t'other, and the like. G. Is the 
reading of the passages the whole that you would do in 
absolving me ^ P. It is, and it would be quite enough. 
G. What would you charge for your absolution] P. 
The sum of * * * G. Good father, I shall save my 
money, for I shall go home and absolve myself. You 
tell me that reading over particular passages of the 



PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 251 

Bible is enough to absolve me ; and I am sure that I 
may as well read them myself, as trouble your reve- 
rence to read them. Therefore I shall go home, get a 
Bible, read the passages, and save my money. Your 
servant, good father." 

Article 2. The little girl was right. The little girl 
could absolve as well as the priest. Any man, woman, 
or child can absolve as well as the pope of Rome ; and 
certainly the patriarch of Constantinople, the archbishop 
q[ Canterbury, the moderator of the General Assembly 
of the kirk of Scotland, or other ministers, could absolve 
as well as the proud pontiff of the Italian city. What 
can any priestal personage do 1 Nothing more than 
declare the following truth : " If you really return to 
God, God will absolve you ; if you truly repent of your 
sins, he will pardon them." Now is the priest the only 
one who can so declare] the only one who can make 
the delightful announcement! No. Any other person 
can make it equally with the priest. Indeed any old 
woman or little girl can absolve as well as any papal 
priest in Christendom. Priestal absolution, that daring 
invention of Rome, is a farce and a fable ; is a piece of 
humbug, and a solemn exhibition of hypocrisy ; is a 
thing of quackery and quixotism ,* is an example o[ ar- 
rogance and impudence ; is a mark of professional vani- 
ty, professional folly, and professional fraud. The pa- 
pal pretension to absolve, is presumption, pride, and 
blasphemy. N. B. Of course, I here take the word ab- 
solution to mean absolution not conditional or declara- 
tive only, but absolute or judicial ; the absolution that 
has been a mighty and fearful engine of papal Rome.* 

* Priests in Protestant lands affect to deny, and do deny obstinate- 
ly, that they profess to pardon sin as judges ; they say they merely 
pronounce absolution and pardon in God's name, upon the penitence 
of the sinner. To expose this imposition I shall quote the decree 
of the Council of Trent on this point, " Si quis dixerit, &c. If any 



252 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

Article 3. Priestal absolution is not according to 
Holy Scripture — to the Bible. 

Firstly. We read not a word in the Bible, read no- 
thing in either Testament for the doctrine, in favor of 
absolution by people not inspired, by people not extra- 
ordinarily, miraculously, prophetically guided by the 
Holy Ghost. Absolution from sin by people not directly 
and immediately superintended and controlled by the 
Divine Being, has not one particle of authority, has not 
one jot, tittle, or iota of support, or even shadow of sup- 
port, in Holy Scripture. 

Secondly. The Bible is even against priestal absolu- 
tion i not only not for, but even against. Many pas- 
sages of Holy Writ are strongly counter to the pre- 
sumptuous, proud, and blasphemous doctrine. The whole 
current of Scripture, the genius and spirit, the practice, 
and the words are all arrayed in opposition to the plan 
of people having their sin forgiven by an uninspired 
priest, and one who is, perhap, far more sinful than 
themselves. On this part of the subject, however, I 
have no time to enlarge ; so I refer the reader either to 
the Bible itself, or to writers who formally handle the 
point. 

Article 4. Priestal absolution is not according to 
reason, to good sense, to pure logical wisdom. 

Firstly. What papal priest can bring a solid argu- 
ment from reason in favor of the scheme 1 Not one. 
Reason is by no mean for the doctrine, giving no coun- 

one shall say that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a 
judicial act, but a naked pronunciation and declaring that sins are 
remitted to the person confessing, provided only that he believes, 
&c. let him be anathema." Hence it is a formal and judicial 
act of the ^/viest, sitting as judges, in Christ's stead, uttering the 
sentence of pardon ! See Council, Trid. Sess. 14, Can. 9. This is 
the Roman genuine doctrine as enacted and promulged " by the in- 
spiration of the Holy Ghost," who, they say, guided that council. 

W. C. B. 



PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 253 

tenance at all to the wild revery, utterly refusing to 
sanction, in any manner or form, the bold and baneful 
blasphemy. 

Secondly. Reason is even against the doctrine 5 not 
only not for, but even against. I will give three solid 
arguments from reason in opposition to the doctrinal 
monster. 

1st. People not inspired, not extraordinarily, miracu- 
lously, prophetically guided by God, cannot know who 
really return to him, cannot understand who truly repent 
of their sin 5 therefore they cannot know whom to ab- 
solve, cannot understand whom to forgive. Through 
their natural ignorance, uninspired people may absolve 
those who have not repented, and refuse absolution to 
those who have 5 may admit sinners into heaven, and 
keep saints out. 

2nd. Uninspired people, people not directly and im- 
mediately superintended and controlled by the Divine 
Being, are quite unworthy to be trusted with so awful a 
charge, so fearful a power as that of absolving, of par- 
doning sin ; for their passion might master their reason, 
and lead them to hold the scale of justice unequally, 
wrongfully, unjustly. Such people are liable to pre- 
judice and party feeling ; are moved and turned by like 
of one, and by dislike of another ; have their favorite, 
their friend, and their foe ; those to whom their affections 
incline, and those from whom their affections recede. 
Now, truly, the like people are altogether unfit to hold 
the balance of Divine Justice, to weigh the moral good 
and evil of mankind, and to decide who may, and who 
may not enter the kingdom of heaven, and live with God 
for ever. 

3rd. When we speak of the papal priesthood, we 
speak not of one, but of many ; not of one man, but of 
many hundreds of thousands of men. Now these men 
not being inspired, not being illumined and led by the 



254 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

Holy Ghost, may not agree about absolution, some say- 
ing yea, and others saying nay. One may say a mau 
shall be absolved, another may say he shall not ; one 
may -absolve him to-day, another may unabsolve him to- 
morrow: one is pushing him into heaven, another is 
pulling him back to earth. Many men, many minds. 
Many a priest, many a plan. 

Article 5. Firstly. As to the uncommon powers given 
to the apostles and other inspired people, I do not pre- 
tend to know their full measure and extent. That the 
apostles and other like people were empowered to ab- 
solve, to forgive sin, is very far more than I clearly and 
certainly know. I am very doubtful of their power to 
absolve. There is something mysterial and darkly de- 
clared, or something prophetically figurative and sa- 
credly symbolical in the words of Christ given in the 
three passages that appear to relate* to the point. "He 
breathed on them, and saith unto them, Eeceive ye the 
Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are re- 
mitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they 
are retained. John, 20. Whatsoever ye shall bind on 
earth, shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever ye 
shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Matt. 
18 : 18. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom 
of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, 
shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt 
loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." Matt. 16 : 19. 
Finding some difficulty in determining the strict and 
accurate meaning of the three passages from the word- 
ing, we may review the practice of the apostles and 
other inspired people, as giving us a key to the meaning. 
Now where do we find any apostle or any other inspired 
person undertaking to absolve % No where. Where in 
Scripture do we read of any man or woman pardoning 
sin, forgiving iniquity, and removing, directly and im- 
mediately, the burden of guilt .1 No where. People are 



PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 255 

directed to the Lord for absolution, are sent to God or 
to Christ for pardon and for peace. " Who can forgive 
sins, but God only 1" Mark, 2:7; Luke, 5 : 21. 

Secondly. But even if apostles, and other inspired 
people, men or women extraordinarily, miraculously, 
prophetically guided by the Holy Ghost, men or women 
directly and immediately superintended and controlled 
by the Divine Being, did absolve ; even if they did par- 
don sin, and free the soul from the curse of the broken 
law ; they were not in this point examples for us, where 
not herein patterns for priests in our day, who are not 
endowed with their superhuman power. A modern 
priest is uninspired ; therefore let him not presume to 
equal an apostle. What an apostle and other like man 
or woman did in prosecution of their formal, official, 
inspirational, miraculous duty, the Holy Ghost himself 
ma}- be said to have done, the Holy Ghost acting indi- 
rectly and mediately, acting through him or her as a 
medium or instrument. 

Thirdly. I deem it right to remark that the former 
two of the foregoing three passages were spoken not 
to the apostles only, but to the disciples, to the kirk ; 
not to the priestal part merely, but to the popular or 
laical too ; to the whole, to the general body of kirk- 
members. And in 1 Tim. 3 : 15, Paul declares the kirk, 
not the priesthood only, but the kirk, — whereof the 
people or laity are far the greater or more numerous 
part, — Paul declares the kirk to be " the pillar and 
ground of the truth." 

Article 6. Indulgence may be taken for a species of 
absolution. Absolution from sin future, may be indul- 
gence ; absolving from sin to be committed in time to 
come, may be indulging. Speaking in the language of 
logic, the specific difference is futurity. Absolution from 
sin, is the genus ; absolution from sin future, is the spe- 
cies termed indulgence. Indulgence, however, has often 



256 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

a meaning different from the foregoing, its meaning be- 
ing various and vague. 

In the dictionary of Dr. Ash, indulgence is defined to 
be, "A grant from the Church of Rome to be exempt 
from rigorous virtue." What a grant ! A grant to in- 
dulge in sin and vice ! a grant to disobey and offend 
God ! a grant to do what tends to damn, and what may 
damn the miserable doer ! a grant to go to hell ! Could 
hell itself, could all the devils combined contrive a grant 
more infernal and diabolical 1 

Maybe a papite will tell me that the grant of ex- 
emption from being rigorously virtuous, or doing ri- 
gorous virtue, keeps one from having vice, or renders 
one innocent in not so being or not so doing. Not to 
be or do according to rigorous virtue, if we have not 
the grant of exemption, is immoral, but if we have the 
grant, is moral. We are vicious or virtuous accordingly 
as we have not or have the grant of exemption. So far 
a papite. But I desire to put a query. Has the Lord 
authorized the kirk of Rome to make the grant of ex- 
emption, and hereby to render moral what afore was 
immoral! No. He has not. God has not allowed any 
man or men to alter the nature of vice or virtue, or to 
make what is vice to-day, to be virtue to-morrow. The 
papal pretended grant is mere presumption and pro- 
fanity, a thing utterly invalid, a thing without power or 
effect in the court of heaven and the pure eye of Jeho- 
vah. " A grant to be exempt from rigorous virtue." — 
Alas ! It would require all the power of God himself to 
make the grant, even if he could make it. It follows 
that " a grant from the kirk of Rome to be exempt from 
rigorous virtue," is nothing better than a grant to live 
in vice, and to go to hell ! 

Article 7. The main field, however, for the operation 
of indulgence, is purgatory. Remitting the sin of a soul 
in purgatory, and enabling it to go from purgatory to 



PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 257 

heaven, is termed not absolution, but indulgence. On 
earth, people are absolved 5 in purgatory, they are in- 
dulged. If you have a relative or friend, dead in the 
Lord, departed in Christ, in a state of grace, now suffer- 
ing torment in purgatory, in a place existing nowhere, 
and if you are willing liberally to pay the pope and 
priesthood, they will indulge him by letting him out, — 
out of nowhere ! But remember, to save your relative, 
you have to sacrifice your pocket ; for the pope and 
priesthood do not perform purgatory-work for nothing. 
Some quack doctors proclaim, No cure, no pay ! The 
pope and priesthood proclaim the reverse, JVo pay, no 
cure ! no money, no mercy ! no gold, silver or copper, 
no heaven ! no hard coin, or good bank notes payable on 
demand, no release from purgatorial pain t Gideon Ouse- 
ley, in his telling letters to John Thayer, declares that 
the pope and priesthood have less regard and pity for a 
human soul than people have for an ot or an ace ! For 
if the latter find an ox or ass in a pit, they help it out 
instanter ; whereas the former will not help a soul out 
of purgatory till they are well paid for their help ! We 
ought to bear in mind, however, that people are quite 
certain in relation to the pit, and that the pope and 
priesthood of Eome have pretty strong internal convic- 
tion that purgatory is a fable. For while the former 
hasten to rescue the poor animal from the real evil of 
the ditch or pit, the latter are not over ready and active 
in delivering the human soul from the unreal and ima- 
ginary evil of the prison or dungeon of purgatory. To 
do a possibility gratis or for nothing is beyond the com- 
mon virtue of our wicked world ; but to do an impos- 
sibility without pay or fee, by unrewardedly bringing 
souls from purgatory, from a place that has not existed 
and does not exist, is quite above the range of popan 
and priestal philanthropy, and would be deemed charity 
gone mad. 



258 POPERY IN SPECIAL, 

Article 8. We have to remember that the papal 
priesthood often do not give absolution and indulgence, 
but sell them, getting money or the like for them di- 
rectly or indirectly. It appears that Babylon, Roman 
Babylon, traded in bodies and souls of men. Bev. 18 : 13. 
Now the sale of absolution and indulgence by the great 
whore, The Mother of Harlots, Rev. 17, affords a wo- 
ful exemplification of the traffic in human souls. By 
daring to absolve from sin, when God does not absolve, 
and to indulge to sin, though God does never so in- 
dulge, the papal whore leads mankind blindfold to ever- 
lasting ruin, in return for their confidence and their 
money ! By directly and immediately selling her abo- 
minable absolution and infamous indulgence to the 
people, she indirectly and mediately sells their poor 
soul to sin, Satan and hell ! In this tremendous trade 
her exports are human souls and bodies too, her place 
of debarkation is hell, and her dealers are the devils ! 
What are her imports'? Her proximate imports are 
sums of money and the like ; her ultimate ones are — 
let the reader conceive ! I hope, sincerely hope, that 
real repentance and Divine absolution, absolution by 
God, will timely intervene for these papal promoters of 
damnation, saving their souls from the never-dying 
worm, and their bodies from unquenchable fire ! Mark, 
9 : 44, 46, 48 j Isa. 66 : 24. 

Subsection III. Article 1. Priestal Excommunication. 
This is a two-headed, two-bellied monster ; in other 
words, two kinds of priestal excommunication have been 
claimed by the papal priesthood, or one kind having two 
degrees ; or one excommunication referring to two 
worlds, to time and eternity, or to earth and hell. 1st. 
Excommunication or expulsion from the visible kirk, 
from kirk privilege, from the outward communion of 
saints. 2nd, Excommunication to hell. N. B. If the 
reader desire special and formal proof in this matter, 



PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 259 

he may consult the noted form termed " Cursing by 
bell^ book and candle" 

Though popery treats the foregoing two excommu- 
nications as one, or as joined together ; or though the 
kirk of Rome views a man when excommunicated or 
expelled from her visible or exterior pale, as virtually 
or consequentially excommunicated or doomed to infer- 
nal ruin, going on the plan of exclusive salvation, or 
salvation confined to her own pale, (aloof from popery, 
aloof from Christianity ! or unjoined to the pope, un- 
joined to Christ !) yet I handle excommunication as a 
two-fold thing, because there are two essentially or 
abstractedly, and because there undoubtedly were at 
first held to be two according to theory or abstract or- 
der, expelling from the visible kirk having been origi- 
nally deemed separate and distinct from delivering to 
damnation. Putting from the visible kirk, and sending 
to hell, are here mentioned as two and different, tk© 
rormer not implying the latter, and not being originally 
deemed to imply it. 

Article 2. We might, perhap, speak of excommuni- 
cation to purgatory, power to send there having, per- 
hap, been claimed by the papal priesthood. If, however, 
an objector be inclined to cavil about the precise or 
exact when, where, and how the power has been claimed, 
I cannot go into detail at present, and therefore reply, 
in brief and in general, somewhen, somewhere, and 
somehow. Indeed it would be difficult to bring the charge 
home by formal proof derived from official documents ; 
for the pope and Roman priesthood presume rather to 
keep in, and to deliver from purgatory, than to send 
thither, as the great majority of good people are affirm- 
ed to go to purgatory afore going to heaven. It being, 
however, probable that the papal priesthood have as- 
sumed the power of sending people to purgatory, even 
those who otherwise would not be pronounced likely to 



260 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

go thither, we may, on account of accuracy and order, 
speak of excommunication to purgatory. 

Excommunication to purgatory is a point that will 
not detain us long. Purgatory being a " cunningly de- 
vised fable," 2 Peter, 1 : 16, excommunication to purga- 
tory would be a mere solemn foolery and humbug, and 
therefore deserves no farther attention, and will not 
again be brought into view. I merely say here, in pass- 
ing, that even if there were such a place as purgatory, 
the pretence of the pope and the priesthood of being 
able to excommunicate thereto of their own accord, of 
their own will and pleasure, would be nothing less than 
presumption, pride, and blasphemy. 

Article, 3. Excommunication or expulsion from the 
visible kirk is an act that may be done by the kirk when 
the kirk has good ground for doing so. Every kirk must 
have power and authority to perform this part of disci- 
pline, as well as to perform two other like parts hereof, 
the three like parts of discipline being admission, cor- 
rection, expulsion. Every kirk has naturally the power 
to admit, correct, expel all who ought to be admitted, 
corrected, expelled. Not only every kirk, however, but 
every other voluntary society must be viewed as having 
within itself the trinal power of admitting, correcting, 
expelling members. Where, however, or in whom (in 
the kirk) the trinal power fairly resides, in one, or in a 
few, or in the many, is a point that I am not called here 
to examine. It is a nice point, and one whereon all pro- 
testants do not agree, and one, therefore, that I, as a pro- 
testant advocate, do well to waive. But I may remark, 
that whatever power properly belongs to the clergy, 
they ought not altogether to disregard the laity, to 
throw their judgment and feeling quite in the back- 
ground or on one side, to deem them void of all claim 
to attention, and to treat them little better than so many 
beasts of burden. Now this is what popery has done. 



TRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 261 

It has allowed nothing to the people, but given every- 
thing to the priesthood; making the former feeble, 
powerless, and fearful ; and the latter absolute, omnipo- 
tent, and daring. The papal priesthood have expelled, 
corrected, and the like, with about as entire a disregard 
and contempt for the popular judgment, feeling, and de- 
sire, as if the people were a set of mere nonentities, or 
things fit to be trodden on, or fit for blindly obeying, 
and for nothing better. Now truly this is wrong, and 
lamentably wrong, being opposed to fair dealing, to 
kind feeling, to man's judgment, to God's will, and to 
God's word. It follows that the peculiarly, pre-eminently, 
and offensively exclusive priestly pretension of Rome to 
excommunicate or expel from the visible kirk, or her 
plan of proceeding herein, is presumption and pride. 
"What can be said for papal excommunication of kings, 
princes, and the like ? Surely there is presumption and 
pride. And it is said that popes have punished sovereign 
princes with excommunication sixty times or oftener. 
Gregory VII. or Hildebrand excommunicated the empe- 
ror Henry IV. Pius V. excommunicated queen Elizabeth. 
Innocent III. excommunicated king John of England. 
And a papal Bull declared the great Charter to be null 
and void, and excommunicated the barons who signed 
it i and the Bull has never been repealed.* Often has 
popery "turned religion into rebellion, and faith into 
faction." 

Article 4. Excommunication to hell is a graver affair. 
The papal fancy of priestal excommunication to hell, 
differs from, and is worse than the papal fancy of 

* Yet the priests and advocates of Rome quote this bold spirit of 
civil liberty on the part of the barons as a proof that the Roman ca- 
tholic religion breathes the true spirit of liberty. These " Catholic 
barons achieved the Magna Charta !" Yes, but their pope, — the in- 
fallible head, — excommunicated the barons, and declared Magna 
Charta to be null and void ! — W. C. B. 



262 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

priestal non-absolution, in two main points. 1st. Non- 
absolution is not saving ; excommunication to hell is 
damning. By the former, the priesthood let people die : 
by the latter, they kill them; In the one way, they do 
them no good ; in the other way, they do them positive 
harm. 2nd. If the priesthood do merely not absolve, 
they leave people a chance of absolution from the Lord 
himself, leave them the benefit of application to heaven ; 
but if they excommunicate to hell, they make people's 
damnation certain and irrevocable, they exclude them 
from hope, they unite them w T ith eternal despair ! 

A little girl can excommunicate to hell, as well as a 
priest. Any man, woman, or child can excommunicate 
as well as the pope of Rome ; and certainly the patriarch 
of Constantinople, the archbishop of Canterbury, the 
moderator of the General Assembly of the kirk of Scot- 
land, or other ministers, could excommunicate as well 
as the proud pontiff of the Italian city. Any old wo- 
man or little girl can excommunicate as well as any 
papal priest in Christendom. The papal pretension to 
excommunicate to hell, is presumption, pride and blas- 
phemy. See last subsection. 

Priestal excommunication to hell, is not according to 
Holy Scripture. Firstly. We read not a word in the 
Bible, read nothing in either Testament, for the doc- 
trine, in favor of excommunication to hell by people 
not inspired. Secondly. The Bible is even against 
priestal excommunication to hell ) not only not for, but 
even against. I cannot stay, however, to handle the 
point fully and at large ; so I refer the reader either 
to the Bible itself, or to writers who formally handle 
the point. See last subsection. 

Priestal excommunication to hell is not according to 
reason, to good sense, to clear wisdom and logic. 
Firstly. What priest can bring a solid argument from 
reason in favor of the scheme 1 Not one. Reason is 



PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 263 

by no mean for the doctrine. Secondly. Reason is 
even against the doctrine ; not only not for,- but even 
against. I will give three arguments. 1st. People 
uninspired cannot know the real state of individuals, 
cannot search the heart, cannot see through the soul, 
cannot be acquainted with the secret thought and 
inward feeling; therefore they cannot know who ought, 
and who ought not to be excommunicated to hell. 2nd. 
People uninspired are utterly unworthy to be trusted 
with the awful and fearful power of deciding on damna- 
tion ; for their passion might master their reason, and 
lead them to hold the scale of justice unequally, wrong- 
fully, unjustly. 3rd. The papal priesthood being many, 
and being uninspired, may not agree about excommuni- 
cation to hell ; some saying yea, and others saying nay; 
some pushing people in, and others pulling them out. 
Many men, many minds. Many a priest, many a plan. 
See last subsection. 

Firstly. I do not pretend fully to know if the Apos- 
tles and other inspired people could excommunicate to 
hell. That they were empowered so to do, is very far 
more than I clearly and certainly know. I am very 
doubtful of their power to damn. Where do we find any 
apostle or other inspired person undertaking to excom- 
municate to hell 1 Nowhere. Where in Scripture do we 
read of any inspired man or woman sending people to 
final perdition 1 Nowhere. The Lord only is represent- 
ed as " able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 
Matt. 10 : 28 ; Luke, 12 : 5. Paul indeed speaks of deli- 
vering unto Satan. " To deliver such a one unto Satan 
for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be 
saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor. 5:5. Of 
whom is Hymeneus and Alexander ; whom I have deliv- 
ered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. ,, 
1 Tim. 1 : 20. Now I do not pretend to know the full, 
exact and unquestionable meaning of the words — Deli- 



264 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

vering unto Satan It is however quite clear and certain 
that the apostle does not mean delivering to damnation, 
excommunicating to hell, in the former passage ; and it 
is very highly probable that he does not mean it in the 
latter * Secondly. But even if apostles and other 
inspired people did excommunicate to hell, even if they 
did damn, they were not in this point examples for us, 
were not herein patterns for priests in our day, who 
are not endowed with their superhuman power. Priests 
nowaday are not apostles, are not inspired ; and there- 
fore ought not to presume to act as if they were. What 
the apostles, the prophets, and other like people did in 
prosecution of their formal, official, inspirational, mira- 
culous duty, the Holy Ghost himself may be said to have 
done, he acting through them as his appointed me- 
diums. See last subsection. 

Subsection IV. Priestal Absolution and Excommuni- 
cation directly and immediately tend to promote priest- 
rule or priestcraft, priestrulive power ; they lead to the 
aggrandizement of the priesthood ; enable the pope and 
the priest to gratify their ambition, and thirst of power, 
and control, to forward their monetary interest, to sati- 
ate their worldly and sensual desire, to indulge their 
carnal appetite, and to pamper their flesh to the full. 
What power, both private and public, has not this dread- 
ful doctrine enabled the priesthood to acquire and re- 
tain 1 The doctrine has enabled the papal priesthood to 
be lordly, tyrannical, and cruel ; to abound in worldly 
wealth, shaking hands and sitting down with Mammon ; 
and to satiate all their sensual and carnal propensity. 
Who thaj know human nature, and the private life of 

* There being no such place or even state as purgatory, the words, 
"Delivering unto Satan," cannot mean delivering to purgatory, or 
excommunicating to purgatorial pain. Purgatory being a fable, we 
cannot understand the apostle to mean that he sent three men there- 
to, sent them to nowhere, to nothing. 



PRIESTAL ABSOLUTION AND EXCOMMUNICATION. 265 

popery, do not believe that a priest has often absolved a 
man in return for the man's giving him a sum of money, 
or for some like thing 1 Who do not believe that a 
priest has often absolved a woman, in return for her 
giving him a sum of money, or for some like thing ; or 
in return for her lending of herself to the work of pros- 
titution, submitting to all the impure will of her priestly 
absolver ? See section XII, subsection VI. 

The direct and immediate tendency and aptitude of 
the arrogant and impudent, of the presumptuous, proud, 
and blasphemous doctrine now under review, to pro- 
mote priestrule, to admove the secular prosperity, and 
confirm the temporal advantage of the Roman clergy at 
the expense of the laity, are the grand recommendation 
of the doctrine to the favor of the priesthood ; are the 
leading reason, the main cause why the doctrine has 
been so fiercely and hotly maintained. The doctrine is 
upheld, not because it is true, for it is untrue, but be- 
cause it is priestrulive. In battling for the prerogative 
of absolving and excommunicating, papal priests have 
battled for the privilege of abounding in power and of 
extracting from the purse ; and they have battled for 
the former, for the sake of the latter ; for the former in 
name, for the latter in reality* The battle has been 
long, destructive and bloody. If they could domineer 
and rule with absolute mastery, as well without as with 
absolution, absolution might go to the wind. If they 
could nestle in the honey-pots of earth, could attain an 
exclusive familiarity with the good cheer of the flesh, 
the world and the devil, without the trouble of excom- 
municating, excommunication might away to the mole 
and the bat. Their infallible and sacred selves desire, 
and long, and pant to be not absolvers, but absolutes , 
not excommunicators, but exclusives ; absolutes in rule, 
exclusives in exemption. The papal priesthood view 
and value absolution and excommunication as the mere 

12 



266 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

means to a carnal end ; they dare to invade both heaven 
and hell, in order to complete their possession of earth. 
See section 12, subsection 7. 



SECTION XV. 



AURICULAR CONFESSION, 



Subsection L " Confess your faults one to another," 
wrote James, chapter 5 verse 16. But how 1 How are 
we to confess 1 In the following fourfold way : Laical 
to laical, — laical to clerical, — clerical to laical, — cleri- 
cal to clerical, — as the case may demand. In mention- 
ing 1 clerical to laical, I hope I do not infringe on what 
rightly belongs to the clergy. I say nothing in opposi- 
tion to what fairly pertains to them ) but only say that 
cases may occur wherein a clerical will find good in con- 
fessing to a laical. And surely the wise and worthy of 
laity and clergy will agree with me herein, and will admit 
that a clergyman may derive benefit from opening his 
mind or confessing to an older, wiser, holier layman. 
What wise and pious clergyman would think himself 
above laying open his mind to laics like Boyle, Hale, 
Wilberforce, or Hannah More % Truly not Fletcher, Bax- 
ter, Leighton, or Usher. Moreover, confess not alway 
covertly, closely, privately, but sometime overtly, open- 
ly, publicly, as the thing may require. Moreover, em- 
ploy the confession as a thing utile and desirable, but 
not indispensable to salvation. Deem it a help in the 
way to heaven, but a help that you can do without. 

Now mark the guile and wile of the papal priesthood, 
the " cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to de- 



AURICULAR CONFESSION. 267 

ceive." Eph. 4 : 14. Note three things. 1st. Instead 
of the foregoing quadruple way, the way of common 
reason and fair doing, papal cunning and double-dealing 
have contrived to narrow the practice to the single way 
of laical to clerical. I must allow that popery does, to a 
degree, practise the confession of clerical to clerical ; but 
this kind is a matter of inferior note, is thought little of, 
and is soon hurried over. The confessional doing is 
mainly or nearly confined to the one way of laical to 
clerical. 2d. Moreover, instead of doing the thing with 
due and opportune publicity, and in the well-timed pre- 
sence of a friend, of one or more, the priesthood have 
managed for the priest and the person confessing to be 
commonly in private, they two shut up together in dual 
secrecy, in a retired room, aloof from observation and 
control by a third party, by other people ; no matter who 
or what the priest, old or young, good or bad \ no matter 
who or what the confitent, a weak-minded man, a person 
near death and about to make a will, an innocent young 
girl, or a married woman ! 3d. Moreover, the priest- 
hood pretend that confession made secretly to the priest 
alone, is indispensable to salvation ! pretend that we 
must either confess to the priest, and in private, or be 
damned ! They pretend that people cannot be saved 
without confessing to a priest. For the pope and priest- 
hood really have gone so far in the way of pride and 
presumption, as to affirm that confession to a priest is 
indispensable to salvation ; that without going to the 
confessional, either in act or in desire, we cannot go to 
heaven. According to their pretending, no priest, no 
pardon ! no confession to a clerical, no compassion 
from God ! Their pretension, however, is mere profane 
folly. A multitude are in heaven who never confessed 
to any clerical. Query. To what priest have Quakers 
gone to confess, or desired to go 1 To none but our 
great High Priest — Jesus the Son of God. Heb. 4 : 14. 



268 POPERY IN SPECIAL 

And what priest having reason, Scripture, and candor, 
will dare to affirm that all Quakers are damned 1 With- 
out confessing to God, indeed, we may not hope for 
heaven ; but the omniscient, omnipotent, and holy God 
is infinitely different from an ignorant, feeble, and sin- 
ful priest. Furthermore, the priesthood pretend that 
people cannot be saved without confessing to a priest 
secretly or in private. They tell that we must not only 
confess to the priest, but confess to him when alone ; 
confessing not only to a man peccable and fallible, sin- 
ning and erring, but even to his private ear, in secret, 
under cover, in the moral dark of retired situation and 
unnatural and corrupting concealment. 

Reader, remember the three things in Auricular Con- 
fession as papally carried on. 1st. People to priest- 
hood. 2nd. Confessor and confitent, or rather confessee 
and confesser commonly in private. 3rd. Confession 
pretendedly indispensable to salvation. Now in the 
foregoing three things we find that the priesthood have 
put the single way in the room of the quadruple one — 
that they have put the covert for the overt — that they 
have put unavoidable for utile. 

Subsection II. Auricular Confession, as it has been 
carried on, namely, people to priesthood, and priest and 
confitent commonly in private, and the thing made a ne- 
cessary condition or a sine qua non, has been a practice 
leading to far more evil than good, to very great evil 
and to very small good, and therefore to great evil on 
the whole. To be at once both brief and clear, I affirm 
that the practice or custom has given ground to the fol- 
lowing five evils, with many more. 

1st. It has lowered the people, and heightened the 
priesthood. It has directly put the stamp of inferiority 
on the laical many, and of superiority on the clerical 
few, hereby filling the former with degradation, and the 
latter with pride. It has greatly augmented priestal 



AURICULAR CONFESSION. 269 

pride, the pride of the pope and priesthood of Rome. 

2nd. By making the priesthood acquainted with the 
secrets of the people, with all secrets o( all, it has mag- 
nified their power at the expense of the people ; it has 
made them strong, and the people weak ; it has made 
the priesthood threatening and tyrannical lords, and the 
people fearful and trembling slaves. The pope and very 
many a papal priest erect a heavy throne on the bodies 
and souls of the people, and crush them beneath the 
weight of their dreadful despotism. 

3rd. By making the priests acquainted with the af- 
fairs and the property of people, and with their inten- 
tion in regard to bequeathing their property, it has en- 
abled them to bias the mind of the will-maker, to in- 
fluence the making of the will, and to turn a portion of 
the property to the kirk, that is, to the priesthood, the 
kirk and the priesthood being, in papally priestal eyes, 
one and same thing. By enabling the priesthood to get 
many a bequest and legacy made in their favor, it has 
brought them money and land at the cost of compara- 
tive poverty to the wife and children, having made them 
opulent, and the wife and children indigent. It has 
pauperated many a lawful heir, to enrich a greedy priest- 
hood ; it has often rendered the natural claimant a beg- 
gar, to cram the coffer Gf the papal kirk, to add to the 
well-filled purse of the Roman clergy, to enable the self- 
termed sole successors of the poor apostles to wallow 
in worldly wealth. 

4th. By giving the priesthood an opportunity of poi- 
soning the moral principle, corrupting the mind, and 
working on the passion of women, it has enabled them 
to indulge in sensuality, to play the lewdster with their 
female confitents, and to seduce many a girl and woman 
who came to confess and to be absolved. A large 
amount of seduction, fornication, and adultery, has come 



270 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

from the confessional. By mean of going to the priest 
in private to confess their sin, many females have been 
led to vice and whoredom, and been utterly undone. 
Instead of being improved from sinful to holy, they 
have been made immoral, abandoned, lewd, and lost. 
Their confessor has been theii' corrupter 5 and instead 
of taking away their sin, has robbed them of their vir- 
tue, plundered them of their chastity, and made them 
twofold more children of hell than they were afore. 
Matt. 23 : 15. 

I quote the following from William Howitfs popular 
History of Priestcraft, chapter 14 ; " Father Anthony 
Joseph has remained there eight years past, continually 
plunged in the abominable practice of sinning with 
women at the time they come to confess, and even in 
the place where he confessed them ; after which he gave 
them absolution, and administered the Sacrament to 
them ! He told them that these actions need not give 
them any concern, since all their Fathers, the Bishops, 
and the Pope himself, observed the same practice !" 

5th. By giving the priesthood great and undue in- 
fluence with kings and ministers of state, it has enabled 
the former to wield an unhappy power over the latter in 
political doing, to the great and lasting evil of nations. 
The priestly confessor of the politician, particularly if 
a Jesuit, (the Jesuit confessors being the worst of all,) 
has often planned and promoted political intrigue, and 
brought about change and confusion, to the ruin of many 
an individual and family, to the misery of the state, and 
to the grave dishonor of religion. Auricular confession 
has been a national evil, a public calamity, a dark and 
threatening spirit or ill-intending demon hovering over 
the length and the breadth of the land. What made the 
king or the queen, the minister or the general do this or 
that bad thing 1 The cursed counsel of the confessor ! 



AURICULAR CONFESSION. 271 

poisoning the ear, hardening the heart, and urging the 
hand to persecution, tyranny and blood !* 

Subsection HI. Firstly. We have to take care so to 
confess to man as not to postpone confessing to God. 
Confession to man, if properly done, is good 5 confession 
to God is infinitely better. The opinion, counsel, and 
experience of wise and holy people may avail us much ,• 
their faithful, fervent, persevering prayer may avail us 
more. But we may not stop there ; we may not imagine 
that confessing to man is all w r e have to do. It is in- 
deed but a small part, a desirable mean to a far more 
weighty end. We may confess to man, in order to learn 
more fully how to confess to God, God only knows 
all our sin, and God only can absolve us herefrom; 
to him, therefore, let all confess, and from him let all 
obtain absolution. Our Father in heaven is the best 
father confessor ; the foot of the cross is the best con- 
fessional ; and humbly and truly confessing to God 
through Christ is the best way of being freed from the 
burden of sin, and of procuring pardon, purity, peace 
and joy. 

Secondly. Has auricular confession been carried on 
according to the spirit of these remarks, and in the 
manner here pointed out \ Alas ! Without referring to 
the five evils mentioned in last subsection, we have too 
great reason to infer that it has not been so carried on. 
We have too great reason to conclude that, in the papal 
kirk, confession to man has been all in all ; has been 
taken not for a mean to a greater end, but for the end 
itself 5 has been viewed as an adequate substitute for 

* The Jesuit confessor of Louis XIV, king of France, was the 
cause of that priest-ruled tyrant's revoking the Edict of Nantz, and 
shedding the blood of unnumbered thousands ; and of his urging the 
duke of Savoy to massacre the Waldenses, and of the last two kings 
of the Stuart line of England persecuting the puritans and Scottish 
covenanters. — W. C. B. 



272 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

confession to God, and as serving in its room. With 
the majority of the followers of the deluded and delud- 
ing kirk of Rome, confessing to a priest, with perhap 
being absolved by him, has been viewed as a kind of 
moral whitewashing that, by having set them free from 
former sin, enabled them to sin again without great fear 
of having too much sin at one time, of being overstocked 
with sin, of causing a glut in the moral or immoral mar- 
ket. Having paid, as they have fancied, their old debt 
due to God, they have held themselves entitled to run 
into a new one ; having cleared off the old score with- 
out great trouble, they have been hardened and induced 
to go and sin anew. The confessional has not been the 
way to the Shekinah and the Mercy-seat ; auricular con- 
fession in the chamber of a priest has not helped the 
confitent to become a real scriptural penitent before the 
throne of God. The priest confessee has not led the 
confesser to Jesus Christ and God, but has thrown them 
into the shade ; for he has acted as their plenipotentia- 
ry representative, or rather as their rival. And, hence, 
by the confessional, and by priestly absolution, innu- 
merable souls are annually and daily ruined for ever ! 
They confess to the priest, and not to God. They seek 
pardon from a priest, and not through the Lord Jesus 
Christ. For the canon of the Council of Trent, session 
14, canon 9, declares that a priest pardons sin " by a 
judicial act," as a judge occupying the place of Christ ; 
and it utters the church's anathema on all those who 
deny it to be a "judicial ad" and make it a mere de- 
clarative act of pardon. 



CELIBATE OF THE CLERGY, 273 

SECTION XVI. 

CELIBATE OF THE CLERGY. 

Subsection I. If I were asked what solid argument is 
found either in the Holy Scriptures, or in right reason, 
for this papal practice, I would reply that I do not know, 
that I cannot tell. The only solid arguments opposing 
the marriage of the priesthood, that I can find, are the 
two following — two arguments drawn not from sacred 
Scripture, nor from right reason, nor from both together, 
but from Roman carnal polity : 

i Argument fird. The unscriptural and unreasonable 
custom was brought in as general and indispensable, or 
made universal and compulsory, by the court of Rome, 
to bind the clergy to Rome, to unite them with Roman 
Babylon, by hindering them from having national, local, 
family ties ; by keeping them aloof, as far as practicable, 
from the honorable and generous love of family, kin- 
dred, home, and country. The Roman court, the heads 
of the Roman kirk, the pope, cardinals, and the like de- 
sired to have one immense clerical tree growing up out 
of Rome, and extending over Christendom, the trunk 
being where the Beast is enthroned, and the branches 
being everywhere ; a tree that may derive sap, nutri- 
ment, and firmity directly from the city on seven hills, 
and spread a dreary shade over all the nations, and wrap 
the whole world in papal deadly night. The practice 
was forcibly and cruelly brought about by the Roman 
court, in order to bind and unite, as it tends to bind and 
unite all the members of the priesthood in one huge 
confederation, in one great aliianee, one mighty league, 
in one body wieldy, tractable, governable 5 a body sepa- 
rate and apart from the people, unconnected with the 
laity in affection and interest, unbound and unjoined to 

12* 



274 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

their country by patriotic feeling; unattracted and un- 
softened by the dear and tender ties of wife, children, 
and home; and opposite and hostile to popular right, and 
the spread and dominion of liberty. (See section 5, 
subsection 1, article 2.) By the operation of the cruel 
and barbarian law, the unsocial and unnatural practice, 
the inhuman and infernal custom, the papal priesthood 
are scattered throughout the papal world, as a huge, 
disciplined, active army, not of martyrs, but of masters ; 
not of sin-opposers, but of slave-makers ; not to raise 
people up to heaven, but to crush and trample them 
down to earth, while their priestly persons walk rough- 
shod over them. The priestal few say to the popular 
many, " Bow down, that we may go over." Isa. 51 : 23. 
Rome is the centre, the strong-hold, the head-quarter of 
this army militant, not con sin, but con liberty ; from 
Rome the foul streams of slavery flow, and to Rome the 
extorted tribute of millions of enslaved people winds 
a way through a thousand channels. The papal priest- 
hood may not marry, that the Roman court may tyran- 
nize over the nations ! and may have fit, able, and will- 
ing agents to carry slavery throughout the world ! Celi- 
bate tends to make the clergy the tyrannical tools of the 
court of Rome ; and the tendency and aptitude of celi- 
bate to do so are the leading reason, the main cause 
why it is upheld. Celibate is a mean to slavery as the 
end ; and it is valued only because it is such a mean. 
In fine, the reason for having celibate, is to make the 
priesthood tyrannical tools ; and to carry out slavery at 
large, the desired end ; or in other words, is the ten- 
dency and aptitude of celibate to .do so, its being a de- 
sired mean to the desired end. 

Argument second. Celibate of the clergy is upheld in 
order to attract into the coffer of the Roman kirk, of 
rather clergy, whatever property individual priests may 
acquire. On the plan of celibate, a priest will probably 



CELIBATE OF THE CLERGY. 275 

1'eave a part, if not the whole of his real and personal 
property to the priesthood; whereas, if he were married 
he would naturally bequeath the property to his wife 
and children. The pope and priesthood are the heir of 
the unmarried clergy, therefore the wily court of Eome 
hinders clerical marriage. 

Subsection IL Five other arguments may possibly be 
given for papally priestal abstaining from marriage \ 
the first derived from Roman priestal vanity, the second 
drawn from papal phantasy, the third imagined from 
Paul's authority, the fourth taken from a ground of 
plausibility, and the fifth obtained from ecclesiastical 
history. 

Argument first. Papal clergymen, taken as men, re- 
garded individually, and viewed apart from their employ 
and professional character, are too pure, too holy, too 
angelical a set of beings to meddle with marriage! 
Heaven help one ! What more 1 So great are the purity, 
the holiness, the angelicality of the papal priesthood, as 
to hinder them from marrying ! Capital ! Who first dis- 
covered this wonderful property of the Roman hierarchy, 
and first employed this cogent and convincing argu- 
ment, is unknown to me. But peace to his inventive 
shade ! He or she has been canonized of course, or 
shame to the court and kirk of Rome ! What could the 
Devil's Advocate* find to oppose to the canonization of 
so notable a character 1 Surely, surely on the day that 
saw the personage canonized, or declared to be a saint, 
the Devil's Advocate and the Devil himself were dumb 
with admiration, were mute through amazement, were 
tongue-tied in spite of themselves. But to be serious. 
Will any one really and coolly bring forward this argu- 

* The " DeviVs Advocate " is an officer of the Roman court whose 
office it is to rake and collect together all that can be said or charged 
against one that is about to he made a saint of the papal calendar X 



276 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

ment, and employ it with a grave countenance! I have 
doubts on the point. If, however, I were to meet the 
argument, I would reply somewhat as follows : What 
hypocrisy! what hyper-hypocrisy! what consummate 
cant ! what laughable humbug ! The claim to superior 
sanctity would be a display of inferior modesty, and 
would call for indignation, contempt, and pity, from all 
honest men and women ! 

Argument second. The priestal confession is too 
pure, the clerical office too holy, the sacerdotal function 
too angelical to allow the priesthood to marry. I reply 
in a twofold way. 1st. Celibate of the clergy is quite 
opposed to reason and good sense, reason requiring the 
marriage of a priest, as well as of other men. 2nd. Ce- 
libate of the clergy is altogether contrary to the whole 
current of Holy Scripture, to the palpable meaning of 
both the Old and the New Testament. This papal doc- 
trine or practice has no authority or warranty in the 
command and direction given throughout the Bible ; and 
has no sanction, no justification in the practice of pa- 
triarch, prophet, apostle, priest, pastor, or other officially 
or really sacred and holy people. I will bring but two 
passages, two out of perhap two dozen or even two 
score. l% Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed un- 
defined." Heb. 13 : 4. Peter, the favorite of popery, 
even Peter was married. Matt. 8 : 14 ; 1 Cor. 9 : 5. N. B. 
It is said that all or nearly all the apostles were marri- 
ed. One passage more. . w Now the Spirit speaketh ex- 
pressly that, in the latter times, some shall depart from 
the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines 
of demons $ speaking lies in hypocrisy ; having their 
conscience seared with a hot iron ,• forbidding to marry ; 
and commanding to abstain from meats." 1 Tim. 4. Oh 
papite ! " Eead, mark, learn, and inwardly digest this !" 

Argument third. The apostle Paul appears, in 1 Cor. 
7, to recommend abstaining from marriage, or to prefer 



CELIBATE OF THE CLERGY. 277 

the single life ; and therefore the papal scheme of cleri- 
cal celibate may boast of scriptural and apostolical au- 
thority. Reply 1st. The recommendation or caution 
was meant to be not perpetual, but temporary 5 was 
given in relation not to time in general, but only to the 
particular time when the apostle wrote. Paul counselled 
for the time then present, and for no more. " This is 
good for the present distress." Verse 26. Reply 2d. 
Paul's words referred not to celibate of mere clergy, but 
to that of clergy and laity 5 not specially or to the few, 
but generally or to the many or all. Paul here wrote 
not of the clergy alone, but of the kirk, of christian 
people generally. " I would that all men were even as L" 
Verse 7. Reader, look the chapter carefully through. 
It had a reference to times of persecution. 

Jlrgument fourth. Celibate gives to the clergy more 
time for their official duty, by keeping them free from 
family care. I will give two replies. Reply 1st. If un- 
married clergy gain time in one way, they lose time in 
another, and the loss perhap nearly countervailing the 
gain. Celibate may gain little even in point of time ; 
for that the gain as to time is material, is by no mean 
clear. Reply 2d. But eyen if the gain in regard to 
time were great, the loss in regard to other things is 
greater, the gain in the former line being far inferior to 
the loss in the latter. Therefore the result on the whole 
is a preponderating evil. Celibate leads to evils many 
and great, and therefore does far more harm than good. 

Argument fifth. Maybe a papite will argue in the 
following way : Even if celibate be wrong, even taking 
for proved that the anti-marriage scheme is unreason- 
able and unscriptural, and therefore an evil, you pro- 
testant ought to blame not the papal kirk, but the 
pristine, the pristine setting the example, and the papal 
following it. Even if the pristine kirk did wrong in 
adopting celibate, the papal did and does right in 



278 POPERY IN SPECIAL* 

having it, copying the pristine pattern. The papal kirk 
has done well in retaining the custom that it found 
existing. Whether the early kirk did well, or ill in 
beginning the custom, the papal did well in continuing 
it when begun. I will give two replies. Reply 1st. 
The papal kirk ought to have known that the conduct 
of the pristine in regard to abstaining from marriage 
was unreasonable and unscriptural, and therefore ought 
to have acted in opposition thereto. If the kirk papal 
would not open its eyes to see the wrong of the kirk 
pristine, it was very blamable ; and if it saw the wrong, 
and yet made it a part and parcel of its own ecclesias- 
tical economy, it was very blamable. The papal kirk 
acted badly in following a bad example. Reply 2nd. 
The papal kirk made what had been frequent and 
optional, to be universal and compulsory. In the pristine 
kirk a part of the clergy followed celibate, and did it 
voluntarily ; but in the papal kirk the whole do it, and 
do it by the hard and stern guiding of compulsion.* 

Subsection III. Of course, I write here in opposition 
to celibacy by compulsion, or of compulsory celibate, 
or of abstaining from marriage through exterior dicta- 
tion and control. If the priesthood individually incline 
to celibate, let them be celibatairs or bachelors ; if they 
voluntarily prefer the single life, let them be free to 
choose it. If any priest think he has good ground for 
abstaining from matrimony, let him abstain. Let cler- 
gymen have matrimonial freedom, like other men ; and 
in deciding for or against a wife, let them be at liberty 
to follow their own choice, consulting their conscience, 



* The priest has no liberty of conscience in this matter. He has 
no free volition : he is a perfect slave of the pope and of Satan, who 
tempts him thence to incontinence. God, and his human constitution, 
and nature, demand marriage. The pope and the tempter to un- 
cleanness prevail over conscience, and duty, and purity ! 



CELIBATE OF THE CLERGY. 279 

using their reason, and examining the word of God. 
Subsedio?i IV. While the kirk of Rome has taken 
care of the Celibate of the clergy, it has left the Chastity 
of the clergy to take care of itself, as a thing of minor 
note and import. Celibate has been required far more 
rigorously than chastity. For, while to marry has been 
strictly prohibited, and severely punished, to be unchaste 
has been deemed a very venial offence, a mere pecca- 
dillo. One might be tempted to imagine the court and 
kirk of Rome as addressing the priesthood somewhat as 
follows : " Avoid marriage, for the good of popery, for 
the good of Rome ; indulge more or less in whoredom, 
for the good of yourselves. Have not a wife, though 
God allows a wife ; repel not a harlot, though God 
forbids a harlot." In fact, many papal families have 
preferred a priest who avowedly and regularly kept 
a concubine, to a priest who did not, they deeming 
the former paragon of purity less likely to attempt the 
seduction of their female members.* This fact tells 
ill for popery, telling more than would a volume. In- 
deed a dreadful quantum of seduction, fornication, and 
adultery, is chargeable on the papal priesthood, and 
is put to their account in the book of God's remem- 
brance. In fine, a great number of the priesthood have 
greatly neglected the following question of inspired 
Paul : " Thou that sayest a man should not commit 
adultery, dost thou commit adultery '(" Rom. 2 : 22. 

Subsection V. Nepotism, (fondness for nephews and 
niees, or love and care of them,) nepotism has been a 
remarkable quality in popes, cardinals, and other papal 
clergymen These men of God, though made so by 
man ! have had of course no son or daughter ; but they 
have been surrounded with a great number of nephews 

* In the Catholic Swiss cantons the priests were enjoined to have 
concubines, to preserve the purity of the wives and daughters of the 
citizens. 



280 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

and nieces^ for whom they have taken care to provide as 
other men provide for their own offspring. It is rather 
strange that brothers and sisters of popes, cardinals, 
and other clergymen, are so peculiarly productive as 
very often to have more children than they can rear, 
educate and settle ; and that they find their reverend 
bachelor brothers so kind to their little ones ! What a 
comfort to them to be fraternally and sororially* con- 
nected with, and to have their young ones snugly set- 
tled by pure, holy, evangelical men, who are total stran- 
gers to the flesh ! entire aliens from carnality ! and 
wholly weaned from sensual predilection ! and who 
iove the little creatures with a warmth and a zeal trans- 
cendently admirable in uncles who are so wrapped up in 
spiritual contemplation ! so swallowed up and lost in 
heavenly designing and doing ! In kirks where clergy- 
men are allowed to marry, they have children like other 
men, and have no more than the common number of 
nephews and nieces, for whom they take no more than 
common care. In the kirk of Rome, however, where 
clergymen do not marry, their nephews and nieces are 
uncommonly and extraordinarily numerous, and are 
treated by these spiritual and ethereal men with uncom- 
mon and extraordinary care and affection. Now how 
can we account for the notable fact, the zoological 
phenomenon 1 May we infer that, — the reverend and 
sacred men of the papal priesthood having bid farewell 
to earthly affection, to Cupid and Hymen, and having 
left population to take care of itself, — nature, fruitful in 
contriving and providing, has given additional power of 
prolification to their brothers and sisters, and additional 
uncle-love to themselves, in order that population may 
suffer no damage, that the burden of supporting a fair 

* Sororial, meaning sisterly, comes from the Latin soror, and is 
the proper correlative to fraternal, meaning brotherly. 



CELIBATE OF THE CLERGY. 281 

proportion of the young may indirectly and circuitously 
fall on the shoulders of the reverend men, and that the 
burden may be borne by them willingly and agreeably % 
Or, may not we rather infer that the pure personages 
are apt to go astray, that the clerical celibatairs are 
prone to be unchaste, that they often leave heavenly 
and spiritual matters for earthly and fleshly ones, that 
they frequently abandon the concern of the soul, to 
mingle with the doing of carnality \ If the former 
inference or theory be the judgment of charity, the 
latter is the judgment of common reason, of history, and 
of truth. I end with a query — Did not the word nepo- 
tism originate in the love and care of nephews and 
nieces, peculiarly observable in the papal priesthood % 
Was not the term nepotism unknown ere the pope and 
clergy were surrounded with nephews and nieces, alias, 
bastard children 1 Or did the word nepotism originate 
priorly ! Had the term been known and employed 
afore, and therefore was it merely appropriated or 
peculiarly applied to the conduct of the pope and 
priesthood of Rome 1 

Subsection VI. A pope or more, many of the cardi- 
nals, and very many of the clergy, while abusing and 
excommunicating poor Luther and the like, fulminating 
anathemas and hurling the thunder of the Vatican at 
the German Reformer and others, truly men of God, for 
having honorably, virtuously, and scripturally married 
an honorable, virtuous, and holy woman, have been 
themselves, in Rome and elsewhere, indulging in un- 
lawful amour and debauchery, lewdly living and revel- 
ing with concubines and whores ! cursing Luther, and 
cursed by God ! In viewing their intentional barbarity 
and cruelty, their volitive despotism and oppression, 
their willed persecution, torture, and murder in refer- 
ence to Luther and the like ; in viewing their actual 
lewd life and sensuality, their seduction, fornication, 



282 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

and adultery ; in viewing their consummate hypocrisy, 
their abominable Jesuitism, their infamous guile and 
fraud $ we are powerfully reminded of the words of our 
Lord, used in relation to members of the Jewish priest- 
hood : " Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can 
ye escape the damnation of hell 1" Matt. 23 : 33. 



SECTION XVII. 

THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 

Subsection 7. Of Baptism and Eucharist I now affirm 
nothing. Of the other five, Confirmation, Penance, Or- 
ders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, I affirm that 
they are no sacraments at all, that they are utterly 
without the sacramental character. 

1st. Confirmation. I do not find the confirmation 
sacrament in the Bible. Whether or not anything is 
said there about confirmation as a mere rite or cere- 
mony, (a point whereon I here give no opinion,) I can- 
not find it there as a sacrament. Where in Holy Writ 
do we read of the sacrament of confirmation, of being 
sacramentally confirmed, of a bishop performing a real 
and proper sacrament by putting his hand on our head, 
praying for us, and the like \ Nowhere. Imposition of 
hands, the laying on of hands, is mentioned in Scrip- 
ture ; but nowhere as a sacrament. Whether the ceremo- 
ny of the imposition is taken as not being, or being obli- 
gatory on us, and whether it is obligatory little or much, 
it is not obligatory on account of any sacramental pro- 
perty or character. We Protestants may not all agree 
about the rite, but we all agree in defying the papal 



THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 283 

advocate to prove the sacrament. Moreover, confirma- 
tion differs largely from imposition of hands, including 
it and a very great deal more ; and building the modern 
papal sacrament of confirmation on the antique and un- 
pretending ceremony, is like building a large and regu- 
lar mansion on the foundation of a mere small cot. 
" Oh, but Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of con- 
firmation !" Did he indeed] When, where and how ] 
The papite will have to bring proof from pretended oral 
tradition, for he will not find any in the written word, 
Scripture being silent on the matter. Sacramental con- 
firmation partakes greatly of papally prelatical and of 
pontifical pride. Thus it appears that confirmation is 
not a sacrament ; that whatever other claim it has, it 
has not the sacTamental one. 

2d. Penance. Penance is no sacrament. What is 
penance 1 Speaking generally, penance is punishment, 
ecclesiastical punishment. Speaking specially, penance 
is one of two parts of kirk discipline, either correction 
or expulsion, and commonly correction. Correction by 
the kirk is penance ; expulsion from the kirk may be 
penance. (See section 13, subsection 3, article 3.) 
Correction is multiform, expulsion is uniform ; there 
being a dozen, a score, a hundred kinds of correction, 
but only one general kind of expulsion. Now is cor- 
rection taken in general, taken as the genus, a sacra- 
ment 1 or is every species of correction a sacrament] 
If every species be a sacrament, we shall have not se- 
ven sacraments only, but seven score of them. More- 
over, is expulsion a sacrament 1 Calling correction 
by a kirk, or expulsion from a kirk, a sacrament, is 
quite nonsensical and ridiculous. If penance be taken 
to mean penitence, it is no sacrament ; being a good 
thing, but no sacramental one. If penance or penitence 
be a sacrament, piety and virtue are sacraments. Being 
penitent is no more sacramental or a sacrament, than 



284 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

being holy, being moral, and the like are sacramental. 
Query. What is the symbol, the outward and visible 
sign in penance % There is none, no symbol or sign. 
Calling contrition or the like the outward sign, terming 
it, as the council of Trent did, the quasi materia, the 
matter after a sort, matter as it were, is mere idle trifling, 
or mere quibbling, unworthy of a candid man. It follows 
that penance is not a sacrament. 

3d. Orders, Whatever else Orders may be, it is not 
a sacrament. The Eoman clergy make a great hubbub 
and ado about Sacramental Orders or Holy Orders. 
What is the nature of Orders % for when we know that, 
we may know that it has little claim or no claim to be 
deemed sacramental. Several opinions about Orders 
are abroad in the world ; and without attempting to 
show what is the right one, (an attempt that would be 
out of place here,) I count to prove that whatever tole- 
rable opinion we adopt, whatever moderate theory we 
hold, we cannot find the sacrament. One view of Or- 
ders is the following : Being Divinely called, being con- 
scientiously called to preach the Gospel ; and serving 
some people in quality of preacher, pastor, minister, 
&c. with scriptural satisfaction to him and them. To 
this view or definition, some would add the being call- 
ed by a presbytery, and others would add the being 
called or authorized by a bishop. If we take the papal 
view, the being called or authorized by the pope or a 
popeling, we have four theories on Orders ; and maybe 
four are not all. Now what theory of the whole im- 
plies a sacrament 1 Not one. Where among them all 
do we find the sacramental! Nowhere. Surely the first- 
mentioned theory involves no sacrament ; and truly 
there is no sacrament in being called by a presbytery ; 
and the being called or authorized by a bishop is not 
sacramental. And I would fain know how a sacrament 
is wrapped up in being called, or authorized, or dubbed 



THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 285 

by the pope or a popeling. By what rule of reason or 
Holy Writ is ordination by the bishop of Rome a sacra- 
ment more than ordination by the bishop of any other 
place 1 By no rule. Ordination from Constantinople or 
Canterbury, is quite as sacramental as that from Rome, 
the patriarch and the archbishop being ordainers quite 
as good as the pope, and mayhap far better. Therefore 
there is not the sacramental character ; or in any mo- 
derate meaning of the term, Orders is not a sacrament. 
Indeed in the full priestly meaning of the term, Orders 
cannot be proved to be a sacrament without quibbling, 
and misapplication of language. 

Properly and accurately speaking, the sacrament 
ought to be affirmed not of Orders, but of Ordination, 
or entering into orders. By Orders I understand the 
clerical state of life ; and by Ordination, I understand 
entering into that state. Therefore instead of saying 
the sacrament of orders, papal folk ought to say the sa- 
crament of ordination. What are the several meanings 
of ordination \ I will give four. One meaning is the 
following : Reception by a man of the spiritual call to 
preach the Gospel ; and agreement between him and 
some people to minister and. to be ministered unto in 
holy things. This may be called the theory Independent. 
Next we have the theory Presbyterian, implying, in ad- 
dition to the above, the call of a presbytery. Then 
comes the theory Episcopal, a theory upheld by many 
learned pens, implying the call or authorization of a 
bishop. Lastly we find the theory Papal, one upheld by 
the pens and power of Rome, implying the call or autho- 
rization of the pope or a popeling. Now how, or by 
what mean can ordination, taken in any meaning of the 
four, be proved to be a sacrament % Not at all, by no 
mean. Whatever else it may contain, it contains no 
sacrament ; it may be more simple or more complex, 
but is not sacramental. 



286 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

4th. Matrimony. It is quite puerile to call matrimony, 
or entering into matrimony, a sacrament. Matrimony is 
a mode of life allowed by Scripture and reason, but has 
no sacramental character. In this pretended sacrament 
we find neither the outward and visible sign, nor the in- 
ward and spiritual grace ; neither the sign, nor the thing 
signified. How is grace exhibited, or how is it conferred 
by marrying 1 And where in Scripture do we find the 
institution of this papal sacrament 1 No where. We 
find it in the unholy council of Trent, but not in the 
Holy Bible. If people talk at random, they may call 
not only marriage or marrying, but engaging in our law- 
ful worldly profession a sacrament ; then becoming a 
merchant, becoming a surgeon, becoming a farmer, are 
three sacraments. 

5th. Extreme Unction. Extreme unction is extreme 
presumption, but no sacrament. Extreme unction, or 
anointing people when about to die, and to prepare 
them for death, is an unscriptural invention, a pre- 
sumptuous plan of presuming man. Mark and James 
write of anointing with oil. "They anointed with oil 
many that were sick, and healed them. Mark, 6:13. Is 
any sick among you ? Let him call for the elders of 
the church ; and let them pray over him, anointing him 
with oil in the name of the Lord : and the prayer of 
faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him 
up." James, 5. Now the anointing here mentioned was 
in order to recovery, was done that the sick person 
might live, was done to heal the sick, to save him and 
raise him up. But the anointing of popery or extreme 
unction is in order to death, or rather to preparation 
for death, is done that the sick person may die com- 
fortably, is done (one may fancy) to enable the dying 
person to glide smoothly out of our world, and to slip 
swiftly and unobservedly into heaven ! The very name 
Extreme Unction was given to the papal unction, be- 



THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 287 

cause it is employed in the extreme moment of life, in 
the last extremity, when the soul is leaving the body, 
when death is certain and near at hand. It follows that 
papal anointing or extreme unction is not in Scripture, 
and of course is not a sacrament. Moreover, the kind 
of anointing or unction mentioned in Scripture, is by no 
mean a sacrament. 

Subsection II. In opposition to the notion of seven 
sacraments, or of any number above two, an argument 
that I do not remember to have read in any book, or to 
have heard from any speaker, has occurred to me while 
writing my work ; and as it appears to me to have con- 
siderable weight, it will be given here. It will be stated 
briefly 5 therefore if it shall not please the reader, it 
will not detain him long. 

The inward or spiritual blessings needed by man 
while on earth, are reducible to two, namely, justifica- 
tion and sanctification, or pardon and purity ; therefore 
only two outward and visible signs are required, name- 
ly, eucharist and baptism, the former signifying justifi- 
cation or pardon, and the latter signifying sanctification 
or purity. I here take holy joy or love to be implied in 
sanctification or purity. The things signified being 
two, the signs need not be seven nor even three, need 
not be more than two. Can any one prove that our in- 
ward or spiritual goods are radically seven or even three, 
that they are not fairly resolvible into two \ Or can any 
one prove that either spiritual good requires more than 
one visible type % If the goods be but two, and if nei- 
ther require more than one visible type, two types are 
enough, and more than two are inutile and unreasonable. 
There being but two things signified, pardon and pu- 
rity, let there be but two signs or sacraments, eucharist 
and baptism. Therefore we want not seven sacraments 
nor even three, but only two. Two spirituals — two sa- 
craments. If the five pretended papal sacraments mean 



288 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

not pardon and purity, they are either unmeaning or ill- 
meaning ; if they mean pardon and purity, they are su- 
perfluous, eucharist and baptism meaning the same two 
things. Two spirituals — two sacraments. 

Subsection III. Making the foregoing five things ap- 
pear to the people, and be regarded by them as five sa- 
craments, tends to dignify and magnify the papal priest- 
hood, to increase their pride, to augment and confirm 
their power, and to indue them with sovereign control. 
Granting hypothetically that they are sacraments, the 
priesthood claim to convey greater advantage or good 
to the people, and appear to stand toward the latter in 
a more imposing and awful relation. And of course, the 
papal notion tends to fill the people with vain hope, to 
make them lean on a broken reed, and to make them 
think that they have received a spiritual and sacra- 
mental blessing, by merely having gone through a pom- 
pous ceremonial form. The Roman priesthood may be 
imagined to address the people somewhat as follows : 
M If the five things were mere ceremonies or rites, we 
should convey to you, through them, common and or- 
dinary benefit ; but the five being sacraments, we con- 
vey to you, by their mediation, benefit uncommon and 
extraordinary, privileges many and great, blessing and 
grace sacramental and divine. 5 ' 

1st. If Confirmation be taken for a sacrament, how 
great are the confirmers ! and how greatly exalted is the 
pride of papal Eome ! Whatever else sacramental con- 
firmation does, it confirms the pride and power of the 
Roman priesthood. Bishops only, I am aware, perform 
the act of confirmation, or confirm. But other clergymen, 
as members of the clerical body, partake of the dignity 
and power that bishops bring to the body ; and other 
clergymen hope to be, in time, exalted to the order 
prelatical if not pontifical. Therefore the whole Roman 
priesthood become lifted up and magnified. Moreover, 



THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 289 

the priesthood claim to convey greater good to the 
people confirmed. What the greater good is, I am un- 
able to explain, because unable to conceive. One thing 
I know : if papites can prove their pretendedly sacra- 
mental confirmation to confer more real or solid good 
than the confessedly ritual one, they will greatly uncon- 
firm me in my opposition to Rome. 

2nd. If Penance be taken for a sacrament, the priest- 
hood derive the greater importance from being the 
inflicters. How important the clergy who can measure 
out sacramental penance to the laity ! In knowing when 
people deserve correction, when they merit expulsion, 
and when they ought not to suffer either kind of eccle- 
siastical punishment : in deciding, in reference to cor- 
rection and expulsion, the following three things, the 
fact, the guilty the punishment ; in determining if the 
action really occurred, if it have the character of guilt, 
and what the punishment ought to be — how intense and 
how durable : — the Roman priesthood know, decide, and 
determine in relation to something beyond the common, 
something bordering on the marvellous, or something 
above the grasp of our plain protestant wit. They soar 
far above us, far away into the clouds, the clouds of 
mist ; and there they probably discover their penance 
sacrament, for they cannot find it on solid ground. 
Otherwise they have a clearer insight into sacramental 
matters ; and, backed by their infallibility, their acute- 
ness can penetrate where our obtusity cannot enter. 
Comparing the most knowing of the protestant clergy 
with the most ignorant of the papal, on a point of kirk 
discipline viewed sacramentally, is like comparing a 
mole with an eagle,— a papal being the judge ! As a 
result of having and not having the sacramental conceit, 
the papal clergy become exalted and magnified, — while 
the protestant clergy are bound to be humble. In 
punishing a man in the kirk, or in punishing him by 

13 



290 rOPERY IN SPECIAL. 

turning him hereout, we indeed see punishment, but we 
see nothino- more, we see not the sacrament ; our dim 
or dull eyes cannot discern the sacramental mystery 
contained in correction and expulsion : the eagle eye 
of popery is needed here. Nor have we brain enough 
to know how a sacrament is wrapped up in penitence, 
any more than in another moral state of mind. It may 
be a pity that we are so dim or short-sighted ; but to 
have the perspicacity of Rome, to see a sacrament 
where none is to be seen, is not within the scope of 
our will. By our want of it we may lose something, but 
hardly humility ; and by their greater wisdom our papal 
friends may gain something, and the thing may be 
pride, or more particularly, the papal priesthood may 
be rendered proud, overbearingly powerful, presump- 
tuous and the like ; and the people be bewildered and 
befooled, and led to think that they have a substance 
when they have but the shadow. For on the sacra- 
mental plan, how much greater are the blessings (of a 
spiritual kind I ween) that the clerical imposters of 
penance convey to the laical sufferers hereof? Indeed 
the number and magnitude of the benefits accruing to 
the people from penance laid on them by the priesthood, 
are quite above my comprehension, and mayhap are 
equally above that of the poor penance-doing people 
themselves ! 

3rd. If orders, or rather ordination, be taken for a 
sacrament, the papal priesthood are quite at home, are 
in their own element, and carry the matter with a high 
hand and an outspread arm. They contend more strong- 
ly for the length, and breadth, and depth of the privilege 
conferred by Ordering or Ordaining — that indescribable 
something concealed in the sacramental character of 
Orders. Oh what many great and good things are im- 
parted by sacramental Orders to the happy recipient, to 
the blissful donee ! Here I am lost in an ocean of won- 



THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 291 

der ! and here the Roman priesthood are directly and 
immediately, innumerably and immensurably magnified, 
glorified, and even deified! The blessings and graces 
of the papal sacrament of Holy Orders or Unholy Orders, 
as the thing may be, are so many and so great as to be 
incomprehensible and inconceivable by my plain com- 
mon wit j indeed they are fully numberable and measura- 
able by none but papally priestal penetration. According 
to the little peep, however, that I, in my humble way, 
have been able to take into the orders or ordination, 
mystery or sacrament, I opine, I ween that their ordina- 
tion conveys to the papal priesthood, or rather that 
thereby the priesthood convey to themselves, power 
and authority over the soul, the body, and the estate of 
the people, the laity ; power and authority to send up 
to heaven all who please, and to send down to hell all 
who displease them ; power and authority to take God's 
own power out of God's own hands, removing Jesus 
Christ from the governmental throne of the world, and 
either sending the Almighty into the idle and do-no- 
thing state of an Epicurean god, or confining his rule to 
Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Halley's Comet, and the like. 
Maybe, however, God's rule extends as near the earth 
as the moon ; but it comes no nearer. The orbit of the 
moon may be a kind of boundary line between the pope 
and the Deity, though the fact is nowhere mentioned 
by Newton or any other astronomer. I am unable to 
find any definite and exact boundary between the pope 
and the devil. Their imperial and sinful majesties are 
on so intimate and friendly terms, being members of 
a family alliance, (though not a holy one,) as not to 
require an intermediate boundary ; for they rule and 
govern in a kind of coparcenary way, having all things 
in common, having no mine and thine, but only our. 
4th. If matrimony or marrying be taken for a sacra- 
ment, none may contract marriage unless the Roman 



292 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

cr sacramental priesthood perform the solemnization, 
and procure sacramental support for pride and power ', 
people may not marry, if the priest will not marry 
them, and do not, by the sacramental whim, endanger 
his humility and the like. No man may have a wife, 
and no woman may have a husband afore the priest 
agrees to tie the matrimonial knot, and risks the unty- 
ing of his humble demeanor, and letting it run away. 
Again. No husband or wife may be divorced, unless the 
priesthood permit, grant a dispensation, or allow a di- 
vorce ; and unless, through their sacramental hobby, 
they become in danger of a divorce from more or less 
of their modest or lowly carriage. Thus people may 
neither marry nor unmarry without priorly obtaining 
permission from papal or sacramental Rome, and with- 
out giving her occasion for being puffed up by her fan- 
cied sacramental importance and power. Moreover, the 
priesthood claim to convey a greater good or blessing 
to the married pair, even a sacramental one. If the 
pretended sacrament would keep away the matrimo- 
nial ills that afflict the present life, (through want of 
piety, good temper, good sense, &c») it would be a 
boon ; and Rome might then be the general marrier of 
Christendom. 

5th. If Extreme Unction be taken for a sacrament, 
the priesthood obtain the greater regard by being the 
anointers. How important the priestly hand that sacra- 
ment ally anoints the dying person ! Moreover, they 
claim to convey far superior advantage to the dying 
man or woman's body or soul, to the latter I opine 
What the boon and benefit are that the clerical donor 
confers on the laical donee, I do not pretend to imagine 
Maybe Extreme Unction is sometime given not only as a 
viaticum, a provision for the journey, but even as a kind 
of letter of recommendation to Peter ! a kind of pass- 
port to heaven ! 



THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 293 

Subsection IV. The tendency and aptitude of the pa- 
pal doctrine of the five sacraments to promote priest- 
rule, to bring power, and pelf, and exaltation to the pa- 
pal priesthood, are the grand recommendation of the 
doctrine to their priestly favor, are the leading reason, 
the main cause why the doctrine was imposed upon the 
world, or why it was palmed on the unreading, un- 
thinking, confiding multitude. The people depended on 
the priesthood to be guided in the true scriptural way ; 
and the latter, deeming the fivefold sacramental doctrine 
a utile medium for promoting their own temporal inte- 
rest, beguiled the poor people by the delusive quintuple 
medley of reality and fable. The five sacraments are 
five particular plans for pillaring up the priesthood, and 
for confirming their power and rule ; and thereby form 
the principal ground for the papal sacramental doctrine. 
Revelation and reason afford no good ground for the 
doctrine, therefore the priesthood uphold it because of 
its priestrulive character. The doctrine favors the Ro- 
man clergy ; and for this reason, and for no other, it is 
favored by them in return. If the five sacraments were 
not Rve strong supporters of priestrule, they might go 
to the four winds. Alas! How many of. the doctrines 
of popery have no foundation in truth! Popery is a 
cunning compound of superficial truth and solid error. 

Subsection V. Article 1. Papal folk have held an 
impious and immoral dogma, in holding that the sacra- 
ments confer grace independently on the state of the 
mind, on the bent of the will, on the secret inten- 
tion of the soul ; that they confer grace ex opere ope- 
rate, through work wrought* The notion of the in- 
herent efficacy of the bare sacramental rite is a dan- 
gerous delusion. Holding the opinion that the mere 

* Glueiy. Are the three Latin words, ex opere operalo, duly ren- 
dered by the three English ones, through uuirlc itrought? 



294 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

regular performing of the sacramental rite, the mere 
opus opercdum or work wrought, confers grace or 
makes one a christian, will naturally take off the atten- 
tion from the great essentials of repentance and faith, 
pardon and purity. The delusive opinion will greatly 
tend to substitute the sign for the thing signified, will 
more or less make Christianity appear to consist in name 
instead of in nature, and will effectively bring one to 
pay more regard to the outward ceremony, than to in- 
ward devotion or holiness of heart. The delusive 
opinion leads one to contravene the benevolent design 
of heaven, counteracting the love and goodness of God. 
Article 2. Popery has taught the delusive and dan- 
gerful doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. Baptismal 
Regeneration may mean two things. 1st. It may mean 
that baptism is regeneration, that baptism by water is 
regeneration by the Spirit, that the material and out- 
ward ceremony is the only mental and inward change, 
that there are not a sign and a thing signified, or that 
the sign and the thing signified are identical, or that the 
mere bodily and external washing is all in all. 2nd. It 
may mean that baptism is always accompanied by re- 
generation, that baptism by water is ever connected 
with regeneration by the Spirit, that the material and 
outward ceremony is invariably attended by the mental 
and inward change, that the sign has a constant compa- 
• nion in the thing signified, or that the bodily and exter- 
nal washing and the spiritual and internal blessing, the 
two parts of the whole, inseparably go hand in hand, the 
application of less or more of water to the body being 
never without the application of purity or sanctification 
to the soul. Now the foregoing two meanings are 
unreasonable and unscriptural, and particularly the for- 
mer meaning. Baptism is not regeneration. Baptism 
is not always accompanied by regeneration. The water 
ceremony neither is, nor is continually followed by, 



THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 295 

the renewal of heart or purification of soul. The first 
meaning is uncommonly absurd, and the second absurd 
enough. Baptism may be, and sometime is an operative 
mean of grace, and accompanied by regeneration. It 
may be a leading mean of grace, one of the most 
important of all 5 and may be not seldom attended by 
the regenerating operation. But that baptism is univer- 
sally an effective mean of grace, and universally attend- 
ed by regeneration or renovation, is denied or contra- 
dicted by all we see, and hear, and read 5 by the testimo- 
ny of every country and age, or by the general experi- 
ence of the christian world. Affirming baptism either 
to be regeneration, or to be always accompanied by it, 
is a part of the ex opere cperafo plan, that monster of 
popery and murderer of piety. And the affirmation has 
been made over and over by the papal tongue and pen. 
Papal priests of pagan principle, gravely tell the people 
that when baptized they are born again ! when sprink- 
led with water, or immerged herein, they are made new 
creatures ! What heathen darkness relating to the work 
of God upon the soul, to the words of Holy Scripture, 
and to right reason ! I pity the blind guides, and the 
poor souls whom they guide, or rather misguide. ft Art 
thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things V 
John, 3. Unrenewed, unholy, unregenerate men advo- 
cate baptismal regeneration. But do we find people 
truly converted to God, people of real religion, of genu- 
ine godliness, of decided and deep personal piety ; do 
we find them contending for the doctrine ] Very seldom 
indeed. They who are regenerated by the Holy Ghost, 
who are renewed in the image of Christ, who are scrip- 
turaily and spiritually born again, who are sanctified by 
Divine power, who are really and truly changed in heart 
from sin to holiness, they hurl to the winds, or even to 
the fiends, the solemn foolery, the monster doctrine, the 
dangerous delusion, the pestilent principle, the fatal 



296 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

error, the baneful heresy of baptismal regeneration, — 
that lamentable offspring of papal Eome. N. B. Of 
course, these remarks on baptismal regeneration apply- 
to it when taken in the meanings here given, and then 
only. Therefore if any one take baptismal regeneration 
in a third meaning, in one quite different from the fore- 
going two, he is not affected by these remarks, and has 
no reason to feel offended or hurt. 

I see no more reason for holding baptismal regene- 
ration, than for holding eucharistal forgiveness of sin $ 
baptismal sanctification and eucharistal justification 
being doctrines equally tenable, or rather equally un- 
tenable. Now no reasonable, scriptural, and holy men 
really believe, or ought really to believe in eucharistal 
justification; therefore none ought to believe in baptis- 
mal sanctification. The eucharist, or Lord's Supper, is 
an outward sign of justification, and Baptism is an out- 
ward sign of sanctification; but the two signs are not 
the two things signified, and are not always accompa- 
nied by them. As people can, and often do receive the 
eucharist without being justified ; so people can and of- 
ten do, receive baptism without being sanctified. In fine, 
eucharistal pardon and baptismal regeneration are two 
doctrines equally and eminently unchristian and absurd. 

Baptismal regeneration must surely imply baptismal 
forgiveness of sin ; justification being clearly implied 
by sanctification* Whoever has purity, has pardon ; 
whoever is freed from the corruption of his heart, is 
liberated from his guilt in the court of heaven. God 
does not cleanse a soul from inward pollution, without 
remitting the debt contracted by iniquity. Will God re- 
new a man in his own holy image, while he is under the 
curse, and exposed to the vengeance of the broken law \ 
will God make him fit for heaven, while he is liable to 
the punishment of hell \ the heart of an angel being 
joined to the doom of a devil] No, no. A sanctified 



PRIESTAL INTENTION, 297 

soul is a justified one, heaven-born holiness is meant to 
lead to heavenly happiness, a god-like soul is not ap- 
pointed to be eternally absent from God, and sancti- 
fication, the farther and higher work, is not without 
justification, the preliminary one. As the Lord does 
not mean to damn a being having his own pure na- 
ture, so he pardons if he purify. Sanctification im- 
plying justification; if water baptism imply the former, 
it implies the latter 5 if through being outwardly bap- 
tized we be regenerated, through that we are forgiven : 
and therefore baptismal regeneration implies baptismal 
forgiveness of sin. Now as reasonable, scriptural, and 
holy people do not hold baptismal forgiveness of sin, 
do not believe that water baptism must imply or carry 
justification ; so they ought not to hold or believe, but 
ought to reject the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, 
or of sanctification being conveyed by a mere rite, hurl- 
ing: the nonsensical notion to all the winds that blow. 



SECTION XVIIL 



PRIEST A L INTENTION. 



Subsection 7. Think of the blasphemous conceit of 
Priestal Intention. We have been told, in effect, that 
people, whatever the state of their heart, whatever the 
bent of their soul, however good, do or do not receive 
benefit in religious ordinance, particularly the seven 
sacraments, according to the secret intention of the 
officiating priest ! Without intention in the priest, there 
is no real sacrament ! If the priest intend to bless, they 
are blessed ! if the priest intend not to bless, they are 
not blessed ! It follows that the priest, and not God 

13* 



298 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

only, is the blesser ! that the priest, and not God only, 
gives or withholds the blessing ! Detestable compound 
of falsehood, pride, and blasphemy ! abhorrible* engine 
of popery and Rome ! 

The plain and palpable aim or object of the utterly 
unreasonable and unscriptural doctrine of priestly in- 
tention, is to magnify the power of the priesthood over 
the people, to make the latter tremble before the former, 
and fear to offend them, lest they occasion the withhold- 
ing of priestly intention ! Priestal intention is maintain- 
ed to maintain priestal interest. 

Subsection II. Article I. The doctrine of priestal in- 
tention, however, is a two-edged sword, and a two-point- 
ed one, and deservedly cuts and pierces the unworthy 
priestly hand that wields it. According to the doc- 
trine, nobody on earth can be certain or can have certain 
knowledge that a supposed priest is a real one ; that he 
was really ordained, really confirmed, or really baptiz- 
ed ; that his ordination, confirmation, or baptism was 
any thing more than a mere empty form or unreal 
mockery. How can any one know it certainly, seeing 
that the validity of the ordination, confirmation, bap- 
tism, depends on the intention of another, and that no 
one can certainly and fully know another man's inten- 
tion 1 Who upon earth can search the heart, see the 
interior of the soul, or evidently know the secret thought 
and intention of the mind of another, of priest A or 
priest B1 No one. Therefore no one upon earth can 
indubitably know that a priest when baptizing, confirm- 
ing, ordaining, or administering the eucharist, penance, 
marriage, or extreme unction, really intends to baptize, 
confirm, ordain, or the like. For aught that any man or 
woman can assuredly tell, the priest does not so intend, 
has not the required intention, and therefore hinders the 

* Is not the word abhorrible a very proper one. 



PR4ESTAL INTENTION, 290 

being of a real and true sacrament. In regard to any 
sacrament of the seven, if the priest do not intend to 
make the sacrament, no sacrament is made; and we 
cannot affirm with clear knowledge, that he does intend 
to make it. We are not sure that, in administering a 
sacrament, a priest has the due intention ; and perhap 
he has it not, We know not that he has, and perhap he 
has not. If a priest intend not to baptize, confirm, ordain, 
or the like, there is no baptism, confirmation, ordination, 
or the like ; and probably many a priest have, one time 
or oftener, been without the due intention; and there- 
fore probably many a sacrament have been unreal and 
null, or a mere hollow mockery. And when we contem- 
plate the long line of priests, a line reaching from the 
christian era to our day, we find that hundreds or thou- 
sands of men may have wanted the right intention ; and 
therefore may have, hundreds or thousands of times, 
nullified or hindered a sacrament, or wholly corrupted 
a sacramental administration ; and therefore may have, 
hundreds or thousands of times, brought disorder and 
nullity into the kirk, unpriesting the priesthood, and 
unchristianizing both priesthood and people. The great 
priestal chain extending from the apostolic time to our 
time, contains thousands of links ; and any priestal link 
may have failed in right intention, and so may have 
destroyed or prevented a sacrament, and so may have 
let confusion and nihility into the long and broad range 
of ecclesiastical conduct and character, making a thing 
to be nothing, and men to-be not what they appear. In 
fine, according to the doctrine of priestal intention, 
apparent priests may be not really priestal, and appa- 
rent christians may be not really christian — sacramen^ 
tally. See Transubstantiation, subsection 2, argument 18. 
Article 2. I quote the following from Gideon Ouseley: 
tr While the clergy contemplated the great benefits 
which accrued to them from this doctrine of intention, 



300 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

even the full subjugation of the people, and were com- 
forted with the delightful prospect, through the blind- 
ness of their hearts to which it seems God gave them 
up in just judgment for their daring conduct and Babel 
building, little did they think or foresee they were pre- 
paring a rod terribly to scourge themselves, a complete 
instrument of their own undoing. For while this doc- 
trine exalts them thus to the summit of their desires, it 
is but for a moment, and to precipitate them headlong 
into utter annihilation. For if by the want of intention 
in them when they ministered, the people were destroy- 
ed ; so by the want of the like intention in those who 
baptized and ordained themselves, must themselves be 
destroyed. So that now, if they have not been rightly 
baptised and ordained by such as were rightly qualified, 
and had right intention, and they again by other such 
persons, and so on back to the very apostles — a thing 
impossible, they have no true baptism or ordination at 
all ; and this operating on the whole body of the clergy, 
necessarily exterminates them all. For if by this doc- 
trine of intention, all the people of the papal church 
are brought unto such miserable circumstances and per- 
plexities, that 'tis impossible for them to know whether 
their clergymen be lawful, or be christians at all ; or 
whether they be christians themselves, or have received 
any true sacrament 5 (as Bellarmine confesses) or whe- 
ther what they have and do receive, being false sacra- 
ments, are not hastening their damnation ! so also are 
the priests, from the highest to the lowest of them, 
unavoidably plunged into the same abyss of uncertainty 
and misery ; because 'tis impossible for them to know 
whether they be priests, as above noticed, and as Gabriel 
Biel (one of them) is obliged to allow ; or whether all 
their services be not so many sacrileges, hastening their 
own destruction, and that of their people ! Thus by this 
famous canon of Intention, found in the Council of 



SUPERSTITION. 301 

Florence, and in that of Trent, by this conspicuous child 
of the Infallibility, is the entire Papal Church, Clergy, 
People, Infallibility, Transubstantiation, with all the 
other peculiarities, grandeur, and high pretensions of 
the papacy, precipitated into eternal ruin — swallowed 
up as in a moment — and devoured altogether! ! Thus 
corruption terminates in its own ruin. 

" Saith Gabriel Biel, * No priest that celebrateth, can 
know evidently whether he be a priest ; for he cannot 
know evidently whether he be baptized, or whether he 
be lawfully ordained. 5 

w Saith cardinal Bellarmdne, f No man can be certain, 
with the certainty of faith, that he receives a true 
sacrament \ because it depends on the intention of the 
minister, and none can see another man's intention.' " 



SECTION XIX. 

SUPERSTITION. 



Subsection /. Superstition is one main essential of 
popery, being thoroughly and largely mingled with the 
other materials of the papal fabric. Standing up for 
trifles ; making a great stir about little things $ treating 
a duck as if it were a swan, and a hawk as if it were an 
eagle, carefully regarding the minor matter, and often 
disregarding the major one ; — this conduct imbues the 
whole papal system ; runs through the length, the 
breadth, and the depth hereof; is found in every grade, 
even from the pope to the lowest friar ; and appears in 
all work, from the canonization of a worthy, or the 
making and marring of a new Jesus Christ, (see Tran- 



302 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

substantiation,) to the counting of the beads, or the 
placing of an image; To one deeply imbued with the 
sublime spirit of Scripture, and filled with the soul of 
ennobling philosophy, a great portion of the papal 
scheme appears little more than a mere mass of mum- 
mery ; an innumerable number of nothings ; the moun- 
tain deemed a molehill, and the molehill esteemed a 
mountain ; the lion bartered for the jackal, and the 
jackal exchanged for the mouse. 

White, black, and gray, with all their trumpery. 

Milton. 

And how could it easily be otherwise 1 Popery is de- 
signed not for the mind, the soul, the reason, but for the 
body, the senses, the ear and the eye ; is intended to 
prepare man not for communion with God, but for sub- 
jection to the priesthood ; is meant not to elevate hu- 
man beings in the scale of existence, and to endow 
them with heaven, but to keep or make them unintellec- 
tual and low, and even to deprive them of earth. Pope- 
ry was planned to promote spiritual and temporal slave- 
ry ; to make the many (the people) a mere beast of bur- 
den, and to make the few (the priesthood) the burdener, 
rider, and owner. Therefore popery is in a manner 
bound to deal in littles, to occupy and amuse mankind 
with trifling and toys, and to allure and delude the 
world with hollow appearances and with empty show. 
Of a large part of popery, one may say cut bono ? to 
what good 1 what good and solid end does it accom- 
plish 1 Alas ! It is marked with vanity ; it is followed 
by inutility ; it is plagued with barren toil, with unpro- 
fitable care, with laborious attention to petty points 
that bring no reward. " Wo unto you scribes and pha- 
risees, hypocrites ! for ye pay tithe of mint, and anise, 
and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of 
the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. Matt. 23:23. 



SUPERSTITION. 303 

Luke, 11:42. Ye blind guides, who strain at a gnat, 
and swallow a camel." Matt. 23: 24. 

Subsection II. I remember having attended, many 
years ago, and on Europe continental, the public Sunday 
service of a popish cathedral. What did I find there 1 
A round of silly trifling, a tedious and tiresome course 
of mere fiddle-faddle, an interminable succession of no- 
things, of tweedledum and tweedledee. The ringing of 
bells, the lighting of tapers, the burning of incense, the 
sprinkling of water, the changing of apparel, the gab- 
bling of priests, the comical contortion of the face, the 
ridiculous attitudes of the body, the turning and twist- 
ing, the innumerable number of ceremonies and empty 
forms, surfeited and sickened me, not with religion cer- 
tainly, but with popery and irreligious man. I beheld a 
host of clergymen ; and they, with the unmeaning frivo- 
lities wherein they were occupied, appeared to have 
little more to do with real religion, with personal piety, 
with heart-work, than a number of boys unconcernedly 
gabbling over a catechism. The ear and the eye had 
something to please and allure them ; but the mind was 
left empty, and the soul unsatisfied. I heard good mu- 
sic, I saw good pictures; but I met little rationality, 
and little or less religion. I was strongly reminded, by 
contrast, of that fine passage of our Redeeming Lord : 
"God is a Spirit; and they who worship him, must 
worship him in spirit and in truth." John, 4 : 24. I ob- 
served in the papal display nothing of spiritual and true 
worship; nothing to fill the deep desire, to answer to 
the inward longing, to respond to the intellectual aspira- 
tion of an immortal mind, of a soul created by God, to 
live for and with God, through all eternity. If man had 
no soul, and no immortality, the papal exhibition would 
be all very well. I can easily imagine a sensible Hin- 
doo, after hearing and seeing what I heard and saw, 
making the following soliloquy : u I have met foolery at 



304 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

home, and I meet foolery here 5 and I deem our pagan 
foolery about equal to your papal one." My own solilo- 
quy, on leaving the cathedral, was the following : ft Vani- 
ty of vanities, vanity of vanities ; all is vanity." Ec- 
cles. 1:2. 

Subsection IIL What a multitude of things, rites, 
customs, and laws, forming a huge bulk of trifling cere- 
monial and idle externality, doing no good and great 
harm, has popery borrowed or invented, and daringly 
added to the pure and simple scheme of the Lord ! I 
will mention a part only, and in a very general manner ; 
for to mention the whole, and with full particularity, 
would require a volume. We find holy water, holy salt, 
holy clay, holy bones, holy grains, holy beads, holy 
scapulars, holy ashes, holy candles, and the like. We 
find the baptizing of bells, the lighting of lamps or can- 
dles by day, the burning of incense, and the like. We 
find pilgrimages, festivals, fasts, prohibition of meats, 
bodily suffering, and other matters of like kind. What 
a pile of folly and profanity ! # 

Did popery find the foregoing things ready made, or 
did she make them 1 She found a great number ready 
made by the paganism of antiquity ; for we have to re- 
member that many or most of the ceremonies and cus- 
toms whereby the papal kirk differs from the protestant, 
are of heathen origin. Indeed, a deal of popery is mere 
paganism under the borrowed and honorable name of 
Christianity. Popery and paganism ! Alas ! Why has 
the mantle of departed pagan error been taken up and 
worn by any system bearing the christian name, and 
claiming to have come from the word of truth ! 

Pye Smith has the following two periods : " A pros- 
trate obedience to these usurpations is produced and 

* A brief and useful account of papal superstitions may be found 
in Ingram Cobbin's " Book of Popery." 



SUPERSTITION. 305 

maintained by terrifying the consciences of the wretch- 
ed votaries of this superstition with the threats of una- 
voidable and eternal damnation. — Can any language do 
justice to the unprincipled fraud and impudence, the 
blaspheming impiety, of this vile delusion V* 

Subsection IV. Relics. Any thing or every thing ap- 
pears to be a relic, that enables a priest while pretend- 
ing to benefit the people, really to bamboozle them, 
and obtain possession of their money. No matter what 
the relic is, or of whom or of what it is a relic. Bone, 
teeth, nail, hair, tusk, horn, hoof, and claw ; a preserved 
ear, a pickled tongue, and a candied nose ; the remain 
of a great toe, of a little toe, and of no toe at all. The 
relic may be something of an apostle, or an apostate ; 
of a saint, or a sinner ; of a christian martyr, or a gypsy 
fortune-teller; of an orang-outang from the Indies, or a 
Barbary ape; of a living lion, or a dead ass; of the 
great fish that swallowed Jonah more than two thousand 
years ago, or a pilchard caught in Cornwall last year, 
and eaten in Rome in the present Lent of 1839. All are 
fish that come to the papal net, all are relics that pro- 
mote gainful jugglery. 

I have somew T here seen or heard an anecdote on the 
point that I will mention, so well as I recollect, for the 
instruction of the reader. A priest sold to different 
people what he called a leg of the ass that carried our 
Lord into Jerusalem. In the overflowing of his zeal, 
however, for their spiritual welfare, or for his own pe- 
cuniary profit, he sold a leg to five people ! These peo- 
ple happening to be severally aware of the whole cir- 
cumstance, the fivefold purchase, and wondering at the 
marvellous matter, called on the priest together to have 
the mystery explained. His reverence seeing the pre- 
dicament he was in, (for the five buyers, with open 

* See :l The Reasons of the Protestant Religion," page 37. 



306 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

mouth, were before him,) put a solemn face on the af- 
fair, and gravely assured them that the said ass was an 
extraordinary one, even more so than Balaam's, and had, 
in addition to other wonderful properties, the miracu- 
lous merit of having five legs ! Maybe if all the legs 
of our Saviour's ass that have been sold were known 
and brought together, they would amount not to five 
merely, but to five score, or even five hundred ! 

Possibly as many finger and toe-nails of the apostle 
Peter only, have been sold, as would nail all the fingers 
and toes of a corner of Christendom ! 

As to locks of the Virgin Mary's hair, I am lost in 
amazement at their possible number. If Mary's hair 
were about as plentiful as the widow's meal and oil 
mentioned in 1 Kings 17, it would be little enough pos- 
sibly for all the locks said to be taken therefrom. Am 
I not pretty near the truth in the following couplet 1 

More locks of the Virgin's hair have been, 
Than single hairs on her head were seen. 

Subsection V. Pious fraud is a common proverb. 
Pious however is too good a word to be desecrated by 
connection with so bad a word as fraud. Moreover, the 
word pious is not adequately definite and exact in mean- 
ing. I exchange pious for priestal. Priestal fraud. 
And alas! if all priestal frauds that have occurred since 
the world began, or even since popery began, were as- 
sembled together in one place, and formed into one 
mass, they would constitute a huge heap, a prodigious 
pile, a colossal monument, beside which the tower of 
Babel would appear as the tower of a common country 
church ! the largest Egyptian pyramid would resemble 
a sugar-loaf! and a mountain would be like a molehill ! 
Happily priestal fraud, though very far from obsolete, is 
obsolescent. I conclude the paragraph by quoting sub- 



BLASPHEMY. 307 

stantially a saying of that unholy and immoral popan in- 
fidel (some call him an atheist) pope Leo the tenth. 
"What an inexhaustible mine of wealth do we find the 
fable concerning Jesus Christ !" 

Subsection VI. I may take the opportunity of men- 
tioning that I have somewhere read or heard of three 
theories propounded by some papal oracular men, to 
account for the birth of Luther. 1st. That he sprang 
from a she-devil and a wizard ! 2d. That he sprang 
from a he-devil and a witch ! 3d. That he sprang from 
a he-devil and a she-one ! Another possible theory, that 
he sprang from a wizard and a witch, would not, I sup- 
pose, be bad enough to account for the birth of the 
German worthy, the sun of the Reformation. 



SECTION XX. 



BLASPHEMY. 



Subsection I. Superstition abounding in the practice, 
Blasphemy abounds in the doctrine of the kirk of 
Rome, as we shall find by going through the doctrines 
one by one. 

1st. Is not the assumption of Infallibility an example 
of blasphemy 1 Short-sighted, ignorant, and erring man 
can hardly declare himself infallible, without blasphem- 
ing; for he thereby attributes to himself the prerogative 
of God. " Now we see through a glass, darkly ; * * * 
Now I know in part." 1 Cor. 13: 12. 

2nd. What is the attribution of Divine authority to 
the Vulgate, Apocrypha, and Tradition, but blasphemy 1 
Putting a mere human translation or the Vulgate, put- 



308 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

ting a mere human original or the Apocryphal collec- 
tion, putting mere Traditional trumpery — on an equality 
with the inspired word of God, is really blaspheming 5 
for it is making human wisdom or human folly equal to 
the wisdom of Jehovah. " Add thou not unto God's 
words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." 
Prov. 30 : 6. 

3rd. Forbidding people to read the Bible, while God 
bids them to read it, implies a kind of blasphemy. 
u Search the Scriptures." John, 5 : 39. w Turn away 
from these poisonous pastures." — Bull of Leo XII. (See 
page 127.) " Blessed is he that readeth," &c. Rev. 1 : 3. 
" If any presume to read * * * he shall not have absolu- 
tion"* * # — Council of Trent. (See page 121.) 

4th. Using an Unknown Tongue, in order to keep the 
people ignorant of God's word, and of their duty toward 
him, and in order to make the priesthood appear so 
many little gods, involves a kind of blasphemy, or a 
thing about as bad. " Write the vision, and make it 
plain" Hab. 2 : 2. The pope and priesthood, by con- 
cealing it in an unknown tongue, make it obscure 
and perplexing. 

5th. Is there no blasphemy in Transubstantiation \ 
We cannot pretend to make a Jesus Christ, and then to 
destroy, to eat and drink him, without blaspheming ! 

6th. The Sacrifice of the Mass is declared, in the 31st 
Article of the kirk of England, to be a " blasphemous 
fable." 

7th. Is no blasphemy implied in the worship of the 
host] 

8th. Half Communion implies very daring presump- 
tion, if not blasphemy, in overturning and putting aside 
the undoubted and allowed institution of our Lord. 

9th. Committing Idolatry, putting many a saint and 
angel nearly on a par with God, or with Christ the 
Mediator, is blaspheming. 



BLASPHEMY. 309 

10th. The papal doctrine of Merit, of Works of Supe- 
rerogation, by making the Creator a debtor to the crea- 
ture, involves blasphemy. " When ye shall have done 
all those things that are commanded you, say, we are 
unprofitable servants ; we have done that which was 
our duty to do." Luke, 17 : 10. 

11th. Asserting the fable of Purgatory, with praying 
God to deliver herefrom, is mocking our Maker, and 
therefore is very like blaspheming. 

12th. The doctrine of priestal absolution and excom- 
munication contains a large amount of blasphemy, by 
proudly claiming for men the prerogative of God ! 
ff Who can forgive sins, but God only ?. Mark, 2:7.* * 
He only is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 
Matt. 10 : 28. 

13th. Auricular Confession involves a degree of blas- 
phemy, in pretending that none can be saved without 
confessing to a priest, and in private, and thereby making 
the priest a kind of co-saviour. " Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Acts, 16 : 31. 

14th. Is there nothing like blasphemy in telling a 
large body of men, the clergy, that they may not marry, 
while God tells them that they may 1 If any deny it to 
be blaspheming, can they deny it to be contradicting 
God \ "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the 
latter times some shall depart from the faith, *-* * * 
Forbidding to marry. 1 Tim. 4 : 1-3. 

15th. Is there nothing like blasphemy in pretending 
that Christ ordained seven sacraments, though he or- 
dained no more than two 1 and in making the human 
five and the Divine two to be co-equals 1 Confirmation, 
Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction are 
the mere coinage of Rome, having no sacramental cha- 
racter in the written word of God : yet popery has proud- 
ly put the vain and complex inventions of men on a 



310 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

par with the strikingly significant and beautifully simple 
institutions of our Lord. 

16th. Priestal Intention has a great deal of blasphe- 
my, in affirming a sacrament to be or not to be, in pre- 
tending that people obtain spiritual blessing or obtain it 
not, according to the secret intention of the officiating 
priest ! The doctrine makes the priest a partner with 
God in the work of saving a soul ! It even puts the 
gracious working of the Deity himself under the offi- 
cial control of thousands of his creatures ! making the 
Holy Ghost dependant on a priest ! 

In relation, however, to the sixteen parts or heads, the 
reader can prosecute the train of thought by himself; 
and therefore I leave him to enlarge the inquiry accord- 
ing to his own free judgment. 

Subsection II. Additional blasphemy. Firstly. Who 
are not amazed at the blasphemous titles that have been 
given to, and taken by the papal chief? " The Lord 
God the Pope! " " Our Lord God the Pope .'" tf Another 
God upon earth /" u True God, and true man ?" u King 
of kings, and Lord of lords /" " Lord of the Universe /" 
" The Light that came into the world /" " The Universal 
Head /" The Universal Bishop /" " The Husband of 
the Church /" and the like. The last title scripturally 
belongs to Christ. Rev. 19 : 7, and 21:9, See Isa. 54 : 
5. The title "King of kings, and Lord of lords," is 
thrice given to Christ. 1 Tim. 6 : 15, Rev. 19 : 16, and 
17 : 14. Moreover, Christ is called ,f the prince of the 
kings of the earth." Rev. 1 : 5. Moreover, see Dent. 
10 : 17, and Dan. 2 : 47. It appears that pope Paul the 
fifth called himself Vice-God, the monarch of Christen- 
dom, the supporter of papal omnipotence, &c. &c. Pa- 
pal blasphemers, examine yourselves. Miserable men ! 
deceiving and deceived ! 

Secondly. The pope daringly pretends to have the 
keys of earth, of hell, and heaven ! He assumes au- 



POPERY IS A NOVELTY. 311 

thority to do what he will on earth, to send whom he 
will to hell, and to send whom he will to heaven ! Proud 
and blasphemous worm ! Who would imagine that so 
great presumption and blasphemy dwell in a weak and 
mortal man ! 

The pope pretends to have the keys 

Of earth, and hell, and heaven! 

Affirms that power over these 

To him is amply given ! 

Power to rule, to damn, to save ! 

Three worlds being subject to one knave ! 

Oh pope ! if ever blasphemy 

Were found in man, 'tis found in thee. 

Subsection III. " He shall speak great words against 
the Most High. Dan. 7: 25. The man of sin, the son 
of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above 
all that is called God, or that is worshipped : so that he, 
as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself 
that he is God. 2 Thess. 2. I saw a beast rise up out of 
the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his 
horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blas- 
phemy. He opened his mouth in blasphemy against 
God, to blaspheme his name. Rev. 13 : 1, 6. I saw a wo- 
man sit upon a scarlet-coloured beast, full of names of 
blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns." Rev. 
17 : 3. See chapter first, section ninth or l?«*t. 



SECTION XXI. 

POPERY IS A NOVELTY. 

f - Where was your religion before Luther V J This 
showy and shallow question has been often put. " Where 



312 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

was your religion before Luther V 9 said a Jesuit to a 
British Protestant. The latter replied, " Where your 
religion never was, in the written word of God." They 
ask, w Where was your religion before Luther V 1 We 
ask them, " Where was your religion before the Council 
of Trent 1" Did not that Council and Pope Pius IV make 
several new articles of faith] They did. And what is 
called the creed of Pope Pius fourth contains twelve 
articles more than the Nicene or Constantinoplan creed, 
twelve new articles! Surely the twelve new articles 
were not a part of the old faith $ for if they were they 
would form a part of the old creed. To show more 
fully, however, that popery is a novel or new think, I 
will now go on to prove, by a short historical account, 
that popery has gradually arisen or grown up since the 
primitive and pure time of Christianity, not only since 
the reign of Constantine, but even in time comparatively 
modern. " Where was your religion afore the Council 
of Trent T 

1st. Infallibility was not claimed till many centuries 
after Christ. It is hard to mark the exact time when it 
began ; but if we may date it from the leading event 
whereby it was helped forward, or from the most re- 
markable move in its early career, we may deem it to 
have begun in the seventh century, in A. D. 606. In 
that woful year the pope gained the title of Universal 
Bishop, But though infallibility may be viewed as then 
born, it took centuries in growing up to full size and 
complete strength, or to its ultimate maturity. 

2d. Vulgate, Apocrypha, Tradition. Their sacred or 
canonical character was laid down and made an arti- 
cle of faith by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth 
century. 

3d. Knowledge a proscribed thing, and the Bible a 
forbidden book. The proscription and forbidding began 
nearly imperceptibly, went on by little and little, and 



POPERY IS A NOVELTY. 313 

became in time remarkable in extent and formidable 
in power ; and if admitting a more exact or formal date 
in their very early career, may probably be dated from 
the secularizing of the kirk in the fourth century. The 
seed was then sown, if it did not then sprout. n 

4th. Unknown Tongue, or Latin the general lan- 
guage of popery. This great improvement on the Divine 
plan was made or brought in by pope Vitalian in cen- 
tury seventh, in A. D. 666. 

5th. Tran substantiation was begun by second Ni- 
cene Council in century eighth, and was made an ar- 
ticle of faith by the fourth Lateran Council in century 
thirteenth. 

6th. The Sacrifice of the Mass could not be afore 
transubstantiation. 

7th. The Worship of the Host could not be afore 
transubstantiation. 

8th. Half Communion, or No Cup to the Laity. It 
began in century eleventh, and was fully and finally 
settled by the Council of Constance in century fifteenth. 

9th. Idolatry appears to have begun, openly and ef- 
fectively, in century fourth, and was confirmed by the 
second Nicene Council in century eighth. 

10th. Merit, according to the papal view of the 
thing, may be dated from the twelfth century, for then 
the monster whim of Supererogation was first invented, 
the invention being made at the end of the twelfth 
century. 

11th. Purgatory, and Praying for the Dead. Ac- 
cording to the learned Hartwell Home's Protestant Me- 
mortal, Purgatory was not introduced until the time of 
Gregory, in the beginning of century seventh ; was not 
positively affirmed till about the year 1140, the mid- 
dle of century twelfth ; and was not made an article of 
faith till made one by the Council of Trent in century 

sixteenth. 

14 



314 POPERY IN SPECIAL. 

12th. Priestal Absolution and Excommunication, as 
a formal and definite twofold thing, may probably be 
dated from twelfth century, for then Indulgence became 
a part of the papal heresy. H. Home's Prot. Memorial 
declares, — " It is a fact well attested in ecclesiastical 
history, that the power of granting indulgences was 
not claimed by the popes before the twelfth century." 

13th. Auricular Confession was first enjoined by 
fourth Lateran Council in century thirteenth. 

14th. Celibate of the Clergy in whole and by law, or 
universal and compulsory, was begun by pope Cyricius, 
or Siricius, in the end of century fourth, and was com- 
pletely confirmed by pope Gregory VII in the end of 
century eleventh. 

15th. The Seven Sacraments. That the sacraments 
are exactly seven, was first formally maintained by 
Peter Lombard in century twelfth ; and that they are 
exactly seven, was first made a matter of faith by the 
Council of Trent in century sixteenth. 

16th. Priestal Intention was formally and fully set 
up by the Council of Florence in century fifteenth. 

17th. Superstition began early, though probably it 
received a grand impetus, and therefore may have the 
date from the secularizing of the kirk, in century fourth ; 
and it became fully confirmed by the papa li zing of the 
kirk in century seventh, when the pope presumed to be 
the general ecclesiastical head under the title of Univer- 
sal Bishop : for it made a main move from each great 
event, the christian kirk becoming thenceforth deformed 
and corrupted by her unhallowed union with pagan 
superstitions. 

18th. Blasphemy, bold and open blasphemy, may be 
dated from century seventh, A. D. 606, when the pope 
became entitled the Universal Bishop, a vain, arrogant, 
and blasphemous title ! N. B. The patriarch of Con- 
stantinople indeed had priorly obtained the title of 



POPERY IS A NOVELTY. 315 

Universal Bishop, but he held it only a very short time. 
As a standing or permanent thing, the title began with 
the pope of Rome ; and therefore from his obtaining of 
the title we may date the blasphemy. 

Reader, we have now gone through the special order, 
the eighteen parts or heads whereinto popery is here di- 
vided and what have we found ! We have found that they 
are not old, but new 5 that they have not antiquity, but 
modernity.* The eighteen things were not from the 
beginning of Christianity ; therefore they are not chris- 
tian. In fine, Popery is a Novelty, an Innovation, an 
•Addition to Christianity, an imperfection and corruption 
added by man to the pure and perfect Revelation of 
God. Popery is a Novelty.f 

* I beg leave to coin the word modernity to mean time modern, 
as antiquity means time ancient or antique. g 

1 1 now refer the reader to the chronological map at the beginning 
of the book, and beg him to review it with care, it being a summary 
peculiarly planned and carefully made, of the present section. 
Though I have seen no former map of the kind, and therefore have 
no sanction for mine by example, yet I hesitate not to put it forth, 
deeming the history of popery brought within the limit of a glance 
of the eye, to be very helpful to the memory, and very convenient. 



FINIS. 



683 






































Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 












PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



